What is Epistemology?

What is Ontology?

What is Rationalism?

What is Plato's Theory of Forms?

What is Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

What is Empiricism?

What is Induction in Philosophy?

What is Phenomenology?

What are Aristotle’s Four Causes?

What is Stoicism?

What is Pragmatism?

What is Solipsism?

What is Materialism?

What is Absurdism?

What is Feminist Epistemology?

What is Idealism? | Definition, History, Examples & Analysis

The words “idealism” or “idealist” are probably familiar ones, often used to describe an optimistic, naive, or even immature disposition. In philosophy, however, idealism describes a certain approach to the question “what is real?”, which became particularly popular in Europe during the late seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many philosophers preceding this period have been identified as “idealists,” however this classification was assigned retroactively during the 1700s. The following study guide will explore some of these key idealist thinkers in Western philosophy, from ancient Greece to the prominent idealists of the modern era. 

In general, idealism promotes the primacy of concepts and ideas over a material world or objective reality. It proposes that knowledge and reality are fundamentally mental activities which are not garnered through sensory experience. In German Idealism, Frederick Beiser outlines the complexity of idealism,

German Idealism

Idealism, broadly speaking, is the doctrine that reality is somehow mind-correlative or mind-coordinated. Bertrand Russell said that “idealists tell us that what appears as matter is really something mental.” But that is rather stretching things. Idealism certainly need not go so far as to maintain a causal theory to the effect that mind somehow makes or constitutes matter. This over-simple view of idealism ignores such versions of the theory as, for example, the explanatory idealism which merely holds that an adequate explanation of the real always requires some recourse to the operations of mind. A genuine idealism will indeed center around the conception that reality as we understand it reflects the workings of mind. But it need not necessarily see mind as a causal source. (2008)  

Beiser references the extreme idealist position that lends no credence to an external reality whatsoever; holding that reality exists solely within the mind, rather than outside in some external realm. While this describes a version of idealism, in broader terms idealists reject the study of things in themselves in favor of the study of knowledge as a feature of the mind. By contrast, realism — which is generally seen as the main opposing philosophy to idealism — holds that what we perceive is what exists in the outside world; that perception is a means of apprehending the real, material world. Indirect realism then refers to a position that falls between realism and extreme idealism, suggesting that there is a perceivable outside world, but much of what we experience is a product of our minds and does not have any material existence. In some cases, idealism holds that the mind alone apprehends true reality. In others, perception participates in shaping and organizing what is real. Whether idealist positions reject the existence of a material world altogether, or merely assert that an external reality is unknowable except as framed by interpretations and concepts, idealism proposes that reality is always relative to the mind, and that the mind always takes priority in explorations of knowledge and being.

There are so many different forms of idealism that it can be difficult to present it as a homogenized school of thought. All of these idealist positions believe to varying degrees, however, that reality and our perceptions depend on our own minds. Typically, the spectrum of idealism is split into two categories: epistemological idealism and ontological idealism. Epistemology refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge – how we come to acquire knowledge and how it’s constituted — and ontology is the branch of philosophy that addresses the question of what exists. 

Epistemological idealism encompasses both indirect realism and idealism, proposing that what we experience of the world is determined by the structures of thought and the function of our minds. Although epistemological idealism for the most part avoids making any actual epistemological claims about the world — for example, claims about how accurately our experience maps on to external reality — it is understood to accept that there is a mind-independent reality. Any perception of this reality, however, is seen as being affected and shaped by the intrinsic structures of our minds to such a degree that we cannot claim any real knowledge of reality itself. Hence, for the epistemological idealists, all knowledge must be understood as self-knowledge or knowledge of the mind. 

On the other hand, we have ontological idealism. Ontological idealism states that reality is determined by thought because reality is thought; the mind is the absolute foundation of reality. An extreme form of this ontological position would look like the “immaterialism” of George Berkeley (1685–1753). Berkeley believed there were no material substances, only immaterial mental substances; that nothing existed except ideas. As Joshua Farris and Benedikt Paul Göcke explain,

The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism

In other words, for Berkeley, it is not simply the world (locally construed) that is mind-dependent, but the whole of reality, including abstract objects, that are dependent on the Divine mind publishing, as it were, his ideas. Berkeley, though, is just one fine representative of metaphysical idealism; there are numerous ways of working out both idealism and immaterialism. (2021)

Berkeley represents an extreme example of ontological idealism, however we will come to see how different influential idealist thinkers can hold different ontological ideas and still be idealists. 

Plato (424/423 – 348 c. BCE) was a classical Greek philosopher with significant influence on the trajectory of Western philosophy, particularly with his assertions of idealism. Philosophy’s task, according to Plato, was not primarily to investigate material objects in the world but rather to examine ideas and concepts — like beauty, truth, goodness. These things are more absolute and eternal than anything else, and hence, tell us more about what is real and how we make sense of what exists. This is evident in Plato’s theory of Forms. In describing this theory, Christian Hengstermann explains,

At the heart of his idealism is the distinction between a realm of temporal corporeal becoming perceived by the senses and one of eternal incorporeal being grasped by the intellect. The intelligible world is viewed as the archetype and cause of the empirical world Plato believed to exist and evolve by virtue of its participation in the forms. (“Plato and the beginnings of Christian idealism,” in The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism, 2021)

Plato considered what the perfect or most ideal version of something could be. He concluded that all things we can conceive of in the world have their ideal antecedents in perfect “Forms,” and that these Forms act as guides or blueprints for our own understanding. But where do these Forms come from and how do we experience them? According to Plato, there is a realm where these ideal Forms exist that transcends time and space. This realm contains all the perfect examples of things: the most perfect circle, the most perfect chair, table, even the most perfect friendship. These Forms, and the realm they exist in, are abstract, but real nonetheless; unchanging, and absolute. It is in the image of these abstract Forms that God created the physical world, so what we experience in the empirical world is a mere, imperfect copy. And yet, we recognize these copies because we know the ideal Form “which can only be seen with the eye of the mind” (Plato, 375 c. BCE [2021] Plato: The Complete Works). Even though these Forms cannot be empirically experienced, our eternal soul, before we were given a physical entity, experienced them. This is what allows us to recognize objects in the world, in their imperfect, plural state. So, for Plato, there are objects in the world that are “always in a state of change. And these you can touch and see and perceive with the senses” while the “unchanging things you can only perceive with the mind” (Plato, 375 c. BCE [2021]).

One of the ways in which Plato illustrates this relationship between our empirical experience and the non-physical realm of ideals is through the allegory of the cave. Plato asks us to imagine prisoners who have lived in a cave for their whole lives. They are bound, unable to move, looking only at the cave wall. Behind the prisoners, there is a blazing fire. People holding a series of objects pass before this fire, casting shadows on the wall that the prisoners face. For the prisoners, those shadows make up the whole of their reality, even though a whole world lies beyond the cave. Plato uses this allegory to examine the journey from ignorance to enlightenment; when one prisoner is freed and journeys into the true reality beyond the cave, this mirrors the philosophical journey we undertake when we look beyond the illusory shadows of our own sensory experience to consider the perfect Forms. 

Plato’s idealism explains our experience in a way that prioritizes a conceptual realm; where true, universal reality can only be accessed in the mind as ideas. This serves to demonstrate the way that idealism can be metaphysical/ontological without subscribing to the extreme immaterialism advocated by philosophers such as Berkeley. Plato still believed in a physical reality, even if he only regarded it as an imperfect copy of the world of Forms. True reality — this realm of Forms — is primarily conceptual, apprehended in the mind, but the empirical world still exists just as the shadows on the cave wall exist.  

We have seen, so far, the way in which idealism considers reality to exist most fundamentally in the mind, experienced only by the mind’s eye. In reference to ontological idealism, Farris and Göcke explain a slightly different idealistic approach,

There are other versions of idealism and immaterialism that require careful articulation. These include, but are not limited to, those of Kant, Leibniz, Hegel, Bradley, Edwards, potentially Husserl, Royce, and many others. For some versions of idealism, it is not simply one mind, the Divine mind, that has priority of place, but one version gives priority to transcendental explanations via minds. This is Kant’s view – or one interpretation of Kant. For Kant, the empirical transcendentally depends on the structuring role of minds. And for a more uncommon idealist variant, one could take Heidegger as an idealist. For Heidegger, it is both ‘subjective’ space and ‘objective’ space that necessarily overlap as explanations of the world. (The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism, 2021)

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is considered an idealist, but he’s also credited with attempts to synthesize the empiricist and the rationalist worldview. For Kant, our understanding of the world is dependent on mental categories, for example, time, space, and causation. This is how Kant develops his much-debated “transcendental idealism.” He explains this position in The Critique of Pure Reason,

The Critique of Pure Reason

But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense. (Kant, 1781 [2022])

We see here how, although knowledge does not precede experience, for Kant knowledge is a feature of the mind. Kant was particularly interested in concepts like space and time. Space and time are not things in and of themselves; they do not exist as part of objects in the world, and yet they still exist. Furthermore, we all understand what these things mean, even if there’s no empirical evidence of them. Kant concludes that things — space, time, causation — must be mental constructs or categories; they belong to an intrinsic intuition. Our minds contain the idea of time and space; that is, our minds have a built-in capacity to perceive the world through a spatiotemporal lens.

For Kant, when we look at objects we are merely experiencing their appearances (the phenomena), rather than the objects themselves (the noumena). The noumenal world refers to objects as they are — independent from our perception of them. Things in themselves exist, but as raw data which is then organized by the mind (by the faculties of intuition), and this is how perception works. So, for Kant, objects in the world exist, but our means of apprehending them — through categories like time and space — are completely mind-dependent. Our minds do not create the objects, but the objects do not exist as we perceive them either. Therefore, knowledge transcends the raw data of sensory experience, revealing the generative and organizational power of the mind.

Kant believed, however, that we could not make any knowledge claims about the noumenal world itself, as we are not able to experience it directly. There is also much philosophical debate over whether Kant sees the phenomenal and noumenal worlds as two separate substances (the “two-world” interpretation), or as different aspects of the same substance (the “two-aspect” interpretation). Is the phenomenal world a lens through which we see something of the underlying noumenal world, or are they two separate worlds altogether? Kant seems inconsistent in his approach to such questions, and so the answers remain controversial. What remains clear, however, is Kant’s emphasis on the mind’s transcendental power in organizing the objects of our experience. 

A primary criticism of idealism is that it is a solipsistic philosophy. This means it falls prey to the inevitable conclusion that we cannot prove the existence of anything or anyone outside of our own minds.

René Descartes (1596–1650) famously justified the existence of the conscious mind, asserting “I think, therefore I am” (Discourse on Method, 1637 [2015]). Descartes was troubled by the fallibility of his senses. If we cannot rely on our senses, Descartes questioned whether we could be certain of any external reality; this would deny any claim to knowledge outside of ourselves. While it is generally held that philosophy should avoid the pitfall of solipsism, idealism (at times) appears to accept it. Beiser claims,

According to this interpretation, German idealism is essentially the culmination of the Cartesian tradition. It accepts some of the central assumptions of this tradition: that epistemology is philosophia prima; that only self-knowledge is certain; that the immediate objects of knowledge are ideas; and that knowledge consists in contemplation rather than action. But it goes even further than Descartes because it takes these assumptions to their ultimate bitter conclusion—namely, subjectivism, the doctrine that the subject has an immediate knowledge only of its own ideas, so that it has no knowledge beyond its circle of consciousness. (German Idealism, 2008).

Under the idealist position, we have no access to the world or to others. If our knowledge solely consists of our own concepts and ideas, how do we know what else exists? How do we know that our minds are not the only thing in existence and that everything we think we perceive is mere illusion? Idealism does not provide us with any satisfying epistemological or ontological certainty. It leaves us, for the most part, unable to say what exists or what we know.

While it is true that, according to idealism, the primary objects of knowledge are ideas and concepts, rather than sensory experience, there are still ways the idealists justify their beliefs in the face of solipsistic threats. In some instances, the primacy of a spiritual reality, although known only in the mind, is seen as being enough to justify claims of the existence of God, or of other minds. For Descartes, God was a benevolent being who bestowed on our minds the ability to know him. God would not deceive us, therefore we must be justified in the apprehension of the objects of consciousness. For Berkeley, whose extreme idealist position is that there is no reality beyond the mind, solipsism might seem to be inescapable. However, Berkeley concedes that there are things he experiences that seem to be outside of the will of his own consciousness. He uses the example of waking up in the morning. He does not control what he perceives when he opens his eyes, despite believing that all reality is made up of ideas and ideas come from the mind. Berkeley considers the nature of these perceptions, writing,

A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

and so likewise as to the hearing and other senses, the ideas imprinted on them are not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit that produces them. (1710 [2020])

Berkeley concludes that these seemingly external ideas justify the existence of a mind outside of his own. While this assertion itself invites further questions about the nature of perception and what it is we perceive, we can begin to see how idealism defends itself against instances of subjectivism.

Idealism, today, is not seen as a particularly tenable philosophical position to hold. In response to the rise of idealism and rationalism in the mid 17th century came classical empiricism, which rooted reality in a knowable objective world. This tends to be closer to the way in which we understand the world and the content of perception contemporarily. Through such thinkers as Descartes and Berkeley, however, we can see the way that philosophies that problematize the primacy of experience and the assumption of a material, objective world, do not automatically fall prey to solipsism.

Of course, idealism is a much broader and more diverse topic than this introductory article can contain. In Western philosophy, which we have focused on, other notable strands of idealism include Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770–1830) absolute idealism and the work of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814), who is often credited as the founder of German idealism. Types of idealism are also observable in Eastern philosophy. The Indian school of thought, Advaita, for example, states that the only thing that is real is Brahman, the deity of creation that inhabits all souls and consciousnesses. More resources on the vast topic of idealism can be found in Perlego’s library, and the further reading section below can act as a guide through that research. 

Idealism and Existentialism: Hegel and Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century European Philosophy (2010) by Jon Stewart 

The Works of George Berkeley (2012) by George Berkeley 

The Threat of Solipsism (2020) by Jônadas Techio

Apperception and Self-Consciousness in Kant and German Idealism (2020) by Dennis Schulting

Advaita Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Outline of Indian Non-Realism (2013) by Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad

Hegel: Texts and Commentary (1977) by G. W. F. Hegel and Walter Kaufmann

Kant on Intuition: Western and Asian Perspectives on Transcendental Idealism (2018), edited by Stephen R. Palmquist

Beiser, F. (2008) German Idealism. Harvard University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1147893/german-idealism-the-struggle-against-subjectivism-17811801-pdf

Berkeley, G. (2012) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Barnes & Noble. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3716092/a-treatise-concerning-the-principles-of-human-knowledge-barnes-noble-digital-library-pdf 

Farris, J. and Göcke, B. P. (eds.) (2021) The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2529748/the-routledge-handbook-of-idealism-and-immaterialism-pdf

Hengstermann, C. (2021) “Plato and the beginnings of Christian idealism,” in The Routledge Handbook of Idealism and Immaterialism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2529748/the-routledge-handbook-of-idealism-and-immaterialism-pdf

Kant, I. (2022) The Critique of Pure Reason. Otbebookpublishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3556929/the-critique-of-pure-reason-pdf

Allais, L. (2004) “Kant's One World: Interpreting 'Transcendental Idealism.'” British Journal for the History of Philosophy. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0960878042000279314

Plato (2021) Plato: The Complete Works. Classics HQ. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3119113/plato-the-complete-works-pdf

What is Idealism?

What is Aristotle's Virtue Ethics?

What is Existentialism?

What is Utilitarianism in Ethics?

Stoicism | Definition, History, Examples & Analysis

It’s likely that you have heard someone described as “stoic” if they heroically endure pain, or stay calm in the face of misfortune. In this common usage, this is “stoicism” with a lowercase “s”. When Stoicism appears with a formal capital letter, though, it refers to the philosophical school — the conceptual basis from which we derive our general sense of what it means to be stoic, and the subject of this guide. 

Our everyday sense of what it means to be “stoic,” divorced from its philosophical roots, is not entirely unfaithful to the underlying philosophy of Stoicism. Although there is variation between the ideas of different Stoic philosophers, Stoicism in general aims to help people minimize negative emotions, endure hardship, and live good lives.

The School of Life’s Great Thinkers (2020) provides a concise and approachable summary of Stoicism in its basic essence:  

Great Thinkers

Stoicism was a philosophy that flourished for some 400 years in ancient Greece and Rome, gaining widespread support among all classes of society. It had one very large and highly practical ambition: to teach people how to be calm and brave in the face of overwhelming anxiety and pain. 

Stoicism is a grounded philosophy centered on practical, everyday considerations: how do we live a good life, and deal with the negative aspects of existence which will inevitably arise? For the Stoics, the mind is key: by controlling our thoughts and emotions, we can control how we react to anything that may happen. A central principle of Stoicism is that we should only worry about what we can control. Rather than being anxious about what we cannot change, Stoicism advises us that it is better to focus our attention on what is actually within our power. It is unnecessary, unproductive, and actively damaging for our well-being to worry about anything else. 

The Stoics extend this mindset to our very greatest worries, such as ill health and death. They advise us to practice a kind of radical acceptance of life’s worst aspects, and to keep in mind our insignificance from a cosmic perspective. As The School of Life continues, “Stoicism is nothing less than an elegant, intelligent dress rehearsal for catastrophe”:

Rather than appease ourselves with sunny tales, it is far better – the Stoics proposed – to courageously come to terms with the very worst possibilities – and then make ourselves entirely at home with them. (2020)

This may be easier said than done, of course, but the Stoics were adamant that this kind of mental discipline was the key to a calm and happy life. 

In Stoicism (2014), John Sellars unpacks Stoicism’s main philosophical features in more detail:

Stoicism

the Stoics proposed a materialist ontology in which God permeates the entire cosmos as a material force. They claimed that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness and that external goods and circumstances are irrelevant (or at least nowhere near as important as most people tend to assume). They argued that our emotions are merely the product of mistaken judgements and can be eradicated by a form of cognitive psychotherapy. They brought these various doctrines together in the image of the ideal Stoic sage who would be perfectly rational, emotionless, indifferent to his or her circumstances and, infamously, happy even when being tortured on the rack. 

For the Stoics, God exists in our material world, and virtue is seen as the highest good and the key to eudaimonia (happiness, flourishing). As Sellars points out, Stoicism does exhibit “complex philosophical theories in ontology (theory of what exists), epistemology (theory of knowledge) and ethics,” but its main focus always returns to how we should live our everyday lives calmly and rationally. 

Now that we have a clearer sense of Stoicism, let’s unpack it in more detail and take a look at its most significant philosophers.

The history of Stoicism is rich and complex, with a range of philosophers from different centuries and countries all contributing to our ideas of what “Stoicism” is today. In the following section, we will introduce some of the most influential contributors to Stoic thought.

Strangely enough, the word “stoic” itself is originally derived from the Stoa Poikile (or “painted porch”) in the Ancient Agora of Athens, where Zeno of Citium (c. 334–c. 262 BCE) and his followers first gathered to discuss their philosophy. 

Zeno may have founded the school of Stoic philosophy, but his ideas did not develop in a vacuum. Many webs of influence can be traced between Zeno’s ideas and those which preceded him — with Socrates and the teachings of Plato’s Academy inevitably looming large, along with the Cynic school of philosophy.  

Even at this early stage, Stoicism was not limited to Athens. As John Sellars explains in The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition,

The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition

Although originally associated with the Painted Stoa in Athens, even in the Hellenistic period we find Stoics active in other parts of the ancient Mediterranean world, most notably Posidonius at Rhodes and Athenodorus in Pergamum. Even in the Hellenistic period, then, Stoicism was a rich and diverse movement, a living tradition as complex as its reception in the periods since antiquity [...] (2016)

Other influential Stoic philosophers from this early period include Chrysippus of Soli (c. 280–c. 206 BCE), who substantially built upon Zeno’s existing principles. Sellars argues that 

He is probably the most important of the early Stoics and arguably the most important Stoic philosopher of all. His most significant contribution to the development of Stoicism lay in bringing together the ideas of his predecessors, adding his own original material and setting out a highly systematic philosophical system that would become the basis for a Stoic orthodoxy. (2014)

The writings of Zeno, Chrysippus, and other early Stoics (such as Cleanthes and Hecato) have been lost to the mists of history, and so all we know of them today are from the works of other writers. The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (c. third century BCE) by Diogenes Laërtius is a substantial source, and his sections on The Stoic Philosophers (2017) can be found in one convenient volume on Perlego. It is from Laërtius, for example, that we find key thoughts from the early Stoics on the primacy of acting in accord with nature:

The Stoic Philosophers

This is why Zeno was the first (in his treatise On the Nature of Man) to designate as the end "life in agreement with nature" (or living agreeably to nature), which is the same as a virtuous life, virtue being the goal towards which nature guides us. So too Cleanthes in his treatise On Pleasure, as also Posidonius, and Hecato in his work On Ends. Again, living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience of the actual course of nature, as Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus; for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe. (c. third century BCE [2017]) 

Living a virtuous life in agreement with nature is just one key tenet of Stoic thought which can be traced back to the very first Stoics. We will turn now, however, to the most influential figures of Roman Stoicism. 

Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE–65 CE) lived a varied life as a philosopher, dramatist, and advisor to the tyrannical Emperor Nero. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic (c. 62–64 CE [2016]) is one of the most influential works of Stoic philosophy, and it remains popular to this day as a relatable and practical guide for dealing with life’s challenges. Seneca deals with a variety of subjects in his letters (addressed to his friend, Lucilius), but the Stoic emphasis on the importance of a calm and clear mentality is evident throughout. Here, for example, we find a classic expression of Stoic fortitude and mental discipline:

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

[L]et the mind be disciplined to understand and to endure its own lot, and let it have the knowledge that there is nothing which Fortune does not dare [...]. We must not cry out at any of these calamities. Into such a world have we entered, and under such laws do we live. (c. 62–64 CE [2016]) 

Rather than rail in vain against the fundamental nature of reality, Seneca advises us to accept it and live as calmly as we can in the present: “memory recalls the tortures of fear, while foresight anticipates them. The present alone can make no man wretched” (c. 62–64 CE [2016]). Even though life may be full of horrors, Seneca tells us that we “suffer more often in imagination than in reality,” and that the best way of dispelling worry is to “assume that what you fear may happen will certainly happen in any event” (c. 62–64 CE [2016]). Through this kind of radical acceptance, Seneca argues, we can find peace. 

As a former slave, Epictetus (c. 50–c. 135 CE) had the kind of life which would have sorely tested his Stoic teachings. He became an influential teacher of philosophy in Rome after gaining his freedom, and what we know of his lectures comes to us in the form of transcriptions from his student Arrian. With his teachings compiled into Discourses (c. 108 CE [2012]) and Enchiridion (c. 125 CE [2012]), the Stoicism advocated by Epictetus has had a huge impact (notably on Marcus Aurelius, who we discuss in the next section). 

The Enchiridion begins with one of Stoicism’s key concepts: the importance of making a distinction between what we have the power to change, and what we do not. Epictetus writes,  

Enchiridion

Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion (turning from a thing); and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices (magisterial power), and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. (c. 125 CE [2012])

Once we have determined whether something lies within our power, we are then able to think and act accordingly. Epictetus tells us that “if it relates to anything which is not in our power, be ready to say, that it does not concern you” (c. 125 CE [2012]). 

Sellars argues that this key concept “perfectly captures the essence of Epictetus' philosophy as we know it” (2014): 

Almost all human misery, he argues, is the product of people [...] assuming that they have control of things that in fact they do not, of grounding their happiness on external things "not up to us" and so making it highly vulnerable to the vicissitudes of fortune. (2014)

Marcus Aurelius (121–180 CE) is one of the most respected Roman emperors; often praised for his apparently wise, considered, and moral approach to leadership. His reputation as a philosopher, however, has arguably transcended the rest of his biography — with his Stoic reflections on life experiencing widespread popularity, particularly in recent years. As Marcel van Ackeren argues, part of Marcus Aurelius’ appeal lies in his fusion of imperial power with philosophical introspection:

A Companion to Marcus Aurelius

Marcus’ reception and reputation does not rest on the two independent pillars of being an emperor and being a philosopher. It is their combination that intrigues, and has always intrigued. (2012)

Gathered together in his Meditations (c. 161–180 CE [2019]), Marcus Aurelius’ musings were seemingly intended to be nothing more than a self-addressed record of his private thoughts, but they now stand as “one of the most widely read philosophical texts from antiquity” (van Ackeren, 2012). In his introduction to Meditations, Donald Robertson argues that it is “one of the most loved self-help and spiritual classics of all time”:

Meditations

the central appeal of the book [...] is that it offers a way to “master care and pain” by providing philosophical insights that promise to elevate our minds above worldly concerns – both the things we crave and those we fear. (2019)

Together with the earlier Stoic texts we have discussed, the Meditations have arguably done the most to shape the Stoic mindset as we know it today. A central tenet of Stoicism, for example, is the idea that we are able to correct false or unhelpful beliefs in order to achieve emotional equilibrium — as Marcus Aurelius famously advises here:   

If you are pained by any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgment about it. And it is in your power to wipe out this judgment now. (c. 161–180 CE [2019])

Memento mori — the practice of reminding ourselves of our own mortality — is similarly central to Stoicism. In the words of Marcus Aurelius,

Do not act as if you were going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over you. While you live, while it is in your power, be good. (c. 161–180 CE [2019])

If you’d like to read about Marcus Aurelius in more depth, A Companion to Marcus Aurelius (edited by Marcel van Ackeren, 2012) and Marcus Aurelius (John Sellars, 2020) provide comprehensive coverage.

One of the issues that has been raised about Stoicism is its attitude towards suffering and emotion in general. It may be possible to remain stoic in the face of some misfortunes, but it may be unrealistic (and a privileged viewpoint) to expect people dealing with more extreme levels of pain and misfortune to remain stoic — for example, those who deal with decades of chronic illness and disability. It is easy to advocate Stoicism when the pain is manageable, but not so easy if it remains intractable for years on end. 

Is Stoicism too fatalistic and comfortable with the suffering of others? Does it tend to assume things are more out of our collective control than they actually are? Can complacency creep in if we merely accept the bad things that happen, without actively trying to change things for the better? Is repressing emotion really a good idea for our mental health?

This last point, Margaret Graver argues, is a misinterpretation of Stoicism. Graver admits, though, that it is easy to see why such an impression of emotionless Stoicism has emerged:

Stoicism and Emotion

“Stoicism” in today’s English means “absence of emotion,” and this usage takes for granted that the Stoics of ancient Greece advocated an across-the-board suppression of feeling. It is no wonder, then, that people interested in the study of emotion have frequently regarded the ancient Stoics with suspicion, even hostility. Most of us believe, reasonably enough, that the capacity for emotions is an important and in any case an ineliminable part of being human. (2008)

But the Stoics’ actual aim, Graver argues, is “not to eliminate feelings as such from human life, but to understand what sorts of aﬀective responses a person would have who was free of false belief” (2008). In other words, this interpretation holds that the Stoics want to identify and eliminate unnecessary feelings, along with their harmful effects on us. 

Along similar lines, Ward Farnsworth argues that

The Practicing Stoic

This is all a misunderstanding. The Stoics do not condemn feeling. In important ways they endorse it. Stoics value compassion, detest indolence, and are committed to service to mankind [...]. But the Stoic would unhook these commitments from inner distress over any given case. For why stop with that case? There is cause for such distress in every direction, and meanwhile it distracts from the big picture and from anything constructive one might do about it. (2018)

Farnsworth argues that Stoics would separate feeling from emotion — they would have compassion for a grieving family, for example, but they would not feel an unreasonable amount of emotion. The Stoic mindset, Farnsworth argues, is composed in such a way that it resembles a greater degree of lived experience than the Stoic might actually have. They would contemplate events with the long understanding, and perspective, of having experienced thousands of other similar events — like an experienced doctor comforting one of their many patients (Farnsworth, 2018). Critics of Stoicism, of course, might still argue that such a response lacks compassion and constitutes an unrealistic denial of human feeling. We may be calmer if we are unaffected automatons, but is this a realistic or even desirable state of affairs? As we will explore in the next section, such concerns have not held back Stoicism’s influence on the modern self-help industry and even psychotherapy. 

Stoicism: a philosophy for the twenty-first century? 

Stoicism has had a rich legacy, with its influence stretching across the centuries. It still has many strong advocates today, and it has recently experienced an upsurge in popularity. Author Ryan Holiday, for example, has experienced great success with his books on Stoicism and the wider The Daily Stoic brand. Stoicism has influenced the self-help sector and been praised for its usefulness in treating a range of modern ailments. The School of Life writes,

We still honour this school whenever we call someone ‘stoic’ or plain ‘philosophical’ when fate turns against them: when they lose their keys, are humiliated at work, rejected in love or disgraced in society. Of all philosophies, Stoicism remains perhaps the most immediately relevant and useful for our uncertain and panicky times. (2020)

Stoicism has even been credited as an influential precursor to such modern psychotherapies as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) — both approaches emphasize the central role of cognition in controlling emotions and the importance of recognizing our thoughts as “just thoughts” which we can control our reactions to. As Donald Robertson writes in “The Stoic influence on modern psychotherapy,”

Albert Ellis, the founder of REBT [rational-emotive behavior therapy], and Aaron T. Beck, the founder of “cognitive therapy,” the most common version of CBT, both described Stoicism as the main philosophical inspiration for their respective psychotherapies. (2016)

[T]he cognitive theory of emotions [...] is the aspect of ancient Stoicism that is most familiar to modern CBT practitioners, and which exerts the most explicit influence over their theory and practice. (2016)

Just as CBT is extensively employed to treat a range of mental health disorders, some modern philosophers are in favor of prescribing Stoicism as a preventive mental practice to help us cope with the challenges of life. Such mental discipline may be difficult to maintain, especially in the more extreme circumstances that life throws at us, but the Stoics argue that we must try. 

Introducing Greek Philosophy by Rosemary Wright

Ackeren, M. van (ed.) (2012) A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1002709/a-companion-to-marcus-aurelius-pdf 

Aurelius, M. (2019) Meditations. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1342933/meditations-the-philosophy-classic-pdf 

Blackson, T. (2011) Ancient Greek Philosophy. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1013655/ancient-greek-philosophy-from-the-presocratics-to-the-hellenistic-philosophers-pdf 

de Botton, A. (ed.) (2020) Great Thinkers. The School of Life. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1637102/great-thinkers-simple-tools-from-sixty-great-thinkers-to-improve-your-life-today-pdf  

Epictetus (2012) Enchiridion. Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1444077/enchiridion-pdf 

Epictetus (2012) Discourses (Books 1 and 2). Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/111046/discourses-books-1-and-2-pdf 

Epictetus (2012) Discourses (Books 3 and 4). Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/111171/discourses-books-3-and-4-pdf 

Durand, M., Shogry S., and Baltzly D. (2023) “Stoicism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2023 Edition. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/stoicism/ 

Farnsworth, W. (2018) The Practicing Stoic. David R. Godine, Publisher. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1384624/the-practicing-stoic-a-philosophical-users-manual-pdf 

Graver, M. (2008) Stoicism and Emotion. The University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1851635/stoicism-and-emotion-pdf 

Holowchak, A. (2008) The Stoics: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/874963/the-stoics-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-pdf 

Laertius, D. (2018) The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Perlego. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1822954/the-lives-and-opinions-of-eminent-philosophers-pdf 

Laërtius, D. (2017) The Stoic Philosophers. Klondike Classics. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/976882/the-stoic-philosophers-pdf 

Robertson, D. (2018) Stoicism and the Art of Happiness. John Murray Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3179242/stoicism-and-the-art-of-happiness-practical-wisdom-for-everyday-life-embrace-perseverance-strength-and-happiness-with-stoic-philosophy-pdf 

Sellars, J. (ed.) (2016) The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1561041/the-routledge-handbook-of-the-stoic-tradition

Sellars, J. (2014) Stoicism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1559085/stoicism-pdf 

Sellars, J. (2020) Marcus Aurelius. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1628770/marcus-aurelius-pdf 

Seneca, L. A. (2016) Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic. Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/510358/senecas-letters-from-a-stoic-pdf 

What is New Materialism?

What is Empiricism? | Definition, History, Examples & Analysis

The word empiricism comes from the Greek word “empeiria”, meaning “experience”. As a philosophical concept, empiricism refers to a certain way of acquiring knowledge. Its simple premise is that the only things we can claim to know are what we garner from our senses; we can only know that which we have direct experience of. This proposition is the basis for numerous diverging philosophical movements, each with their own triumphs and pitfalls.

Empiricism is united against the premise of rationalism. Rationalism is a school of thought that proposes that the mind can generate knowledge outside of experience. Both empiricism and rationalism seek to answer questions about what exists, but they each have different requirements for making these knowledge claims. This is what is known in philosophy as the a priori / a posteriori distinction. These terms have their basis in Aristotle’s The Organon (40 BCE) and have become a useful, but technical, shorthand for two types of knowledge acquisition. A priori refers to a proposition that can be known independent of experience. To use the famous Kantian example, we might claim to know that “all bachelors are unmarried men.” We do not need to have experience of “all bachelors” to know that they are unmarried because the very concept of a bachelor predicates this marital status. Thus, we are making an a priori knowledge claim; a knowledge claim acquired from the logical and deductive power of the mind rather than direct experience of the world. A posteriori refers to knowledge claims garnered only from experience. The claim that the sun is shining, or that Mount Everest is the highest mountain, must be verified by our experience of the world; you must observe the sun shining — Mount Everest must be measured — in order for those knowledge claims to be justified. Empiricism contends that the only knowledge we have is a priori; originating in and verified by our experience. This opposition to rationalism is a key feature of empiricism. As R. Meyers asserts in Understanding Empiricism,

Understanding Empiricism

Empiricism and rationalism are contradictory. One asserts that there is some a priori knowledge of reality and the other denies it. This means that one cannot be both an empiricist and rationalist at the same time. (2014)

It is important here to consider what we mean by experience. Some may claim to have an experience of God, for example. For thinkers like René Descartes, proof of God exists in our concept of him. The idea of a perfect creator predicates the existence of God. But this was not compelling to the empiricists. They argued that God is not found in the outside world and therefore his existence cannot be verified by our senses. This was the empiricist criteria for experience. Empiricist philosopher John Locke responded to Descartes’s rationalist methodology, claiming that the only ways to justify the existence of something is by examining the world around us — “external perception” — and examining the way our mind works in response — “internal perception” (Meyers, 2014). This is what constitutes experience for Locke. As Meyers expands, however,

Locke’s own argument for God meets this condition. He holds that we are conscious that we exist and are thinking beings and, since matter cannot explain thought, concludes that a thinking being created the material world. This is an empiricist argument, since it rests on premises that are (i) about real existents, as opposed to concepts, and (ii) are certified by experience. (2014)

As we can see here, it is not that Locke did not believe in God, it’s that he could not accept Descartes’s justification of his existence. We see here how two opposing approaches can lead to the same basic knowledge claim. With this in mind, empiricism is a methodology rather than a doctrine; it presents a way to find things out rather than tells us directly what exists and what does not. Empiricism has a long history, with countless iterations and developments, some of which we will explore in the following article.

The basic empiricist methodology has a presence in ancient philosophies from around the world. Dating as far back as 9th century BC, many ancient Indian philosophies, for example, cite “perception” and “inference” as the “accepted proof” of “formal or generic existence” (Hindu Philosophy, Davies, 2013). Schools of thought like Sānkhya, Vaisheshika, and Charvaka gave credence to that which appealed to our external perception, while considering that faculties like rationality, logic, and inference provide a different, less certain understanding of the world. Such a line of thinking matches the methodology of empiricism; sharing the premise that sensory experience is the only means of knowing — that true knowledge is gained a posteriori.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) is the ancient Greek philosopher perhaps most commonly associated with early empiricism. Aristotle famously looked to nature — to natural phenomena — to understand the relationship between observation or perception, and knowledge claims. The prevailing philosophies at the time were Platonism and materialism. Plato understood the world as made up of imitations of divine forms, while materialism suggested everything in existence to be made up of matter and function mechanically. The former of these was too dogmatic for Aristotle, and the latter too reductive. Platonism was an idealist philosophy, meaning it developed concepts first that the world then conformed to. Empiricism, on the other hand, looked to the world first, then formulated conceptual understanding. This process is at the heart of the scientific method, with Aristotle often heralded as the first biologist of the Western world. Aristotle relied on the correspondence between our experience of the world, and our idea of it; constant corroboration by means of experience would yield knowledge. In Aristotle’s Empiricism, Jean De Groot outlines the difference between experience and experiment (both associated with the scientific method), noting,

Aristotle's Empiricism

The absence of experimentation has been cited as a characteristic of early science. Experiment, the hallmark of modern Western science, is usually described as the contrivance, for the purpose of discovering underlying principles, of empirical states of affairs not encountered in the natural course of events. Experiment is defined over against experience, a term of art among historians of science that refers to a collection of empirical encounters with the natural world. Experience may mean more or less detailed observation of physical phenomena, anatomical inspection, astronomical data collecting, or any kind of induction from one or many cases. (2014)

This outlines the way in which experience preceded the intricacies of the modern scientific method. The observation of the nature of things, their causes and effects, and the necessity of experience in this process, is the bedrock of modern science. This empiricist position on knowledge acquisition is indebted to the work of Aristotle. (For more on Aristotle, you can explore our guide on his concept of the four causes.)

With these examples of ancient empiricism in mind, we can see how fundamental experience is to much of today’s world view. It has proposed an answer to two of the great epistemological questions: “what is knowledge?” and “how do we come to know things?” Empiricism outlines a particular condition for knowledge — that knowledge is garnered from sense experience — one that appears in some of the earliest known philosophical thought and continues to hold credence today.  

Significant developments in our contemporary understanding of empiricism were made by seventeenth and eighteenth century British Enlightenment thinkers. Crucially, philosophers such as John Locke (1632–1704) and David Hume (1711–1776) provided examples of the way in which the nitty-gritty of empiricist theory was dealt with. These thinkers are among the first British empiricists, carving out a unique intellectual history in Britain.

John Locke was a significant proponent of the theory that the mind is a black slate, a tabula rasa. With its roots in Aristotelian empiricism, this theory proposed that the mind possesses no innate ideas or structures. Locke uses the example of a newborn baby, claiming that “infants” are all born “weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding” (Complete Works of John Locke, 1689, [2019]). He theorizes that, because that baby has no experience of the world, it has no content in its mind; it is a blank slate. As the baby gains experience and as its senses develop, the world begins to imprint on the baby’s mind. This is how, according to Locke and empiricism more broadly, we come to have knowledge of the world. The concept of the mind as a tabula rasa again refutes the rationalist proposition that we can know things a priori; independent of experience. Where rationalism believes that the mind has the capacity to gain knowledge through logic and deduction, presupposing innate mental structures and functions, empiricism considers the mind to be a receptacle for our experiences of the world.

David Hume built on this empiricist theory of mind. He considered the capacity of the mind to generalize and conceptualize, while still believing it to be a blank slate. If we see one swan, and another swan, and another, we build a mental category of “swans.” We have no concept of this mental category at birth, we develop it through experience. Furthermore, if we have seen a multitude of swans in our lives, and all of them have been white, we are likely to conclude that all swans are white. This is called inductive reasoning and it is a habit of the mind, one that assumes the future will conform to our past experiences. Hume applies this mental tendency to cause and effect, asserting,

Complete Works by David Hume

Our idea, therefore, of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature, where similar objects are constantly conjoined together, and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of the other. (1739–40, [2021])

It was Hume’s position that inductive reasoning, although a mental tendency, cannot be justified because it presupposes a priori understanding. The past cannot provide us with sensory experience of the future, therefore any inferences we make about the future are made outside of the empiricist method. In David Hume, James N. Anderson speaks to the importance of Hume, explaining,

David Hume

Hume argued that reason is unable to underwrite our ideas about an external world and to justify our inductive inferences about general laws of nature that enable us to predict future events. No philosopher who is committed to Hume’s naturalistic approach has been able to solve the problems exposed by Hume. (2019)  

The contributions made by Locke and Hume are examples of the way that empiricism was expanded on in more modern thought, building on the idea that knowledge flows to us from the external world, rather than from our minds to the external world.

Empiricism is among the most crucial and influential epistemological positions, providing a compelling answer to the question of where knowledge comes from. It stripped the mind back of inferences and deductions, studying only the knowledge we gain through observation of the world. By distilling knowledge down to what we experience, empiricism paved the way for the scientific method that still relies on the heavy burden of proof that empiricism outlined. This has made for a rigorous means of investigating the world. However, empiricism, like any other philosophical treatise, is far from foolproof.

René Descartes (1596–1650) famously questioned the reliability of our sensory experience. He was troubled by the potential for our senses to be tricked or manipulated. He asked how do we know we are not being deceived by an omnipotent evil demon? How do we know we aren’t merely dreaming of these experiences? Or as a later thought experiment would ask, how can we be sure we are not a brain in a vat, hooked up to an elaborate machine that simulates a corporeal experience? All these possibilities would make our experiences feel real but would not correspond to the objective world. Descartes concluded that he must not trust his senses and thus must suspend all knowledge his senses seemingly provide him. Cartesian skepticism, as this position is known, would seem to question the very foundations of empiricism.

Locke had a response to this, of course. He agreed with Descartes that there were aspects of sensory experience that could not be trusted. So, he split experience of the outside world into two categories: primary and secondary. Locke proposed,

Complete Works of John Locke

The ideas of primary qualities of bodies are resemblances of them and their patterns do really exist in the bodies themselves; but the ideas produced in us by these secondary qualities have no resemblance of them at all. There is nothing like our ideas existing in the bodies themselves. (1690, [2019)

Primary qualities belong to the object; they are material facts of the world. For example, a particular tree has indisputable qualities, like its height, its weight, its density, and if you were to disagree with those qualities, you would be wrong. These are primary qualities. They belong to the object itself and not the mind of the perceiver. Secondary qualities are things like color, taste, and sound. A debate could easily take place on the color of the tree, or the sound its leaves make. That’s because, as Yasser Jarkas explains,

Ideas of secondary qualities do not resemble any property in the object; they are instead a product of the power that the object has to cause certain kinds of ideas in the mind of the perceiver. (“Introduction,” Complete Works of John Locke, 2019)  

This addressed another major question that empiricism provoked: how can you be sure that your experience of a thing perfectly matches the next person’s experience? There is no way to verify that my understanding of “green,” for example, is the same as yours.

In response to Locke’s primary and secondary qualities, George Berkeley (1685–1753) questioned the objectivity that empiricism still relied on. Perception could not be compartmentalized into primary and secondary qualities because we cannot actually experience these qualities independently. The tree, stripped of its secondary qualities, cannot exist. If secondary qualities can only be known subjectively, and secondary qualities cannot be separated from primary qualities, then, Berkeley concluded, all perception takes place in the mind. As a result, experience cannot confirm the existence of a material world. Berkeley wrote, 

The Works of George Berkeley

By our senses we cannot perceive more than ideas or phenomena, aggregated as individual things that are presented to us: we cannot perceive substances that make no appearance in sense. (1710, [2012])

This was another pitfall of empiricism; we are unable to step outside of our own experience, to see the world independently of our mind or senses. So, Berkeley believed, in order for something to exist it has to be perceived; things only exist “in the mind of the perceiver” (Jarkas, 2019). Despite this strictly immaterialist school of thought, Berkeley was considered among the most famous British empiricists because his position still rests on the power of observation. Knowledge still comes from experience and our perception of the world.

These are just a few examples of the discourse that constitutes empiricism’s long and intricate history. As De Groot summarizes,

Empiricism, the conviction that in one way or another sense experience or being acted upon by the world is the primary source of human knowledge, is a notion so broad as to be in need of continual refinement. (2014)

What unites this ever-evolving philosophy is the conviction that ideas alone cannot exist in a void — they must come from somewhere. Empiricism emerged as an answer to the infamous skepticism that guides philosophical enquiry — one that prioritizes our experience and perception of the world around us. The existence of things around us is the ontological starting point for empiricism; only then can we make knowledge claims and begin to examine the self.

Introducing Empiricism by Dave Robinson, Bill Mayblin

Objectivity, Empiricism and Truth by R. N. Newell

Taste and Experience in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetics by Dabney Townsend

Consciousness in Indian Philosophy by Sthaneshwar Timalsina

An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Christopher Bartley

From Empiricism to Expressivism by Robert B. Brandom

Anderson, J. (2019) David Hume. P Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2508624/david-hume-pdf 

Berkeley, G. (2012) The Works of George Berkeley. Vol. 1 of 4. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1818510/the-works-of-george-berkeley-vol-1-of-4-philosophical-works-170521-pdf 

Davies, J. (2013) Hindu Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1676621/hindu-philosophy-the-sankhya-karika-of-iswara-krishna-pdf 

Ancient & Classical Philosophy Articles