Ancient Philosophical Influences

Question 1

Platos argument for the theory of forms (universal concept)

Answer 1

1.Universal concepts like beauty and justice exist and cannot be fully explained by physical examples. This is plausible because the idea of beauty and justice is very subjective depending on individual and cultural interpretations. However people often refer to an ideal concept of beauty of justice that transcends individual cases. this suggests the existence of a universal form or essence that is not tied to any specific physical example, lending credibility to the idea that such concepts are independent of the physical world and grounded in something more abstract, as suggested by the Theory of Forms.

2.If universal concepts like beauty or justice exist independently of the physical world, then the Theory of Forms is correct.The Theory of Forms, as proposed by Plato, posits that abstract concepts (like beauty and justice) are not merely derived from physical examples but exist as eternal, unchanging realities in a non-physical realm. If universal concepts exist independently of the physical world, this aligns with the central claim of the Theory of Forms. This makes the premise plausible because the Theory of Forms provides a coherent framework for explaining how these universals exist beyond subjective perception and variability in physical examples.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Theory of Forms is correct.

Question 2

Plato’s Argument from Reason (Opposition to the Senses

Answer 2

1. The senses are unreliable as they only show imperfect copies of the forms, whilst reason can grasp the forms.
   2.If so, they reliance on reason to understand reality is necessary.
   So, (2)

Question 3

The allegory of the cave as proof of enlightenment

Answer 3

1. People who rely only on sensory experience are like prisoners in a cave.
2. If so, they enlightenmnet can only be achieved through reason and intellectual pursuit.
3. So, (2)

Question 4

Argument for the 4 causes

Answer 4

1. Everything can be explained through the four causes; material, formal, efficient and final cause.
2. If so, they aristotles theory of causation is correct.
   So, (2)

Question 5

Aristotle’s argument from teleology

Answer 5

1. Everything in nature has a purpose our goal (telos).
2. If so, then aristotles teleological view of reality is valid.
3. So, (2)

Question 6

Aristotle’s argument from the prime mover

Answer 6

1. Motion and change in the world require a first cause that is unchanging and eternal.
   If so, then the prime mover exists
2. So, (2)

Question 7

Objections and replies to the theory of forms

Answer 7

From Aristotle’s critique of the forms
(Third mean argument)
1. The theory of forms can of explain how the forms interact with the physical world.
2. If so, then it is an incomplete explanation of reality
3. So, (2)

Reply: Plato would argue that the Forms are not physical entities but metaphysical realities that provide the basis for all physical things. The interaction between the Forms and the physical world is a philosophical mystery, not a contradiction.

From empiricism
1. Knowledge comes from sensory experience (empiricism)
2. If so, then reliance on the forms and reason is misplaced.
3. So, (2)

Reply to Empiricism (Rationalists, e.g., Descartes)
Descartes and other rationalists would respond by emphasizing that sensory experience is deceptive and that reason provides the only foundation for universal truths, which are necessary for science and ethics.

Question 8

Objections and replies against Aristotle’s prime mover

Answer 8

From the problem of causality (Hume)
1. Causality is not a necessary relationship but a habit of thought.
2. If so, then the idea of a prime mover is unnecessary.
3. So, (2)

Reply: .

From the problem of infinite regress
1. An infinite regress of causes is possible (counter to Aristotle’s assertion).
2. If so, then the concept of a Prime Mover is not needed.
3. So, (2)

Reply: Aquinas would expand on Aristotle by stating that an infinite regress is logically impossible because it fails to provide an ultimate explanation for existence, which is necessary for the coherence of reality.