Ancient Philosophical Influences Flashcards
Platos argument for the theory of forms (universal concept)
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.
Plato’s Argument from Reason (Opposition to the Senses
- The senses are unreliable as they only show imperfect copies of the forms, whilst reason can grasp the forms.
This is plausible because physical objects constantly change and decay, but reason allows us to comprehend the unchanging and universal ideas they represent.
2.If so, they reliance on reason to understand reality is necessary. This is plausible because reason allows access to unchanging, perfect Forms, offering a more reliable way to comprehend reality than the ever-changing sensory world.
So, (2)
The allegory of the cave as proof of enlightenment
- People who rely only on sensory experience are like prisoners in a cave. This is plausible because sensory experience provides limited and often distorted information, while reason allows us to understand deeper truths beyond appearances.
- If so, they enlightenmnet can only be achieved through reason and intellectual pursuit. This is plausible because escaping the limitations of sensory experience requires intellectual effort to grasp deeper truths, which aligns with the idea of seeking enlightenment through reason.
- So, (2)
Argument for the 4 causes
- Everything can be explained through the four causes; material, formal, efficient and final cause. This is plausible because understanding anything fully requires knowing its composition (material), its structure (formal), how it came to be (efficient), and its purpose (final).
- If so, they aristotles theory of causation is correct. This is plausible because the four causes comprehensively address the questions of “what,” “why,” and “how” something exists, making Aristotle’s theory a valid explanatory model.
So, (2)
Aristotle’s argument from teleology
- Everything in nature has a purpose our goal (telos). this is plausible because natural phenomena, like the growth of plants or the behaviour of animals, often seem directed to specific ends, such as survival or reproduction.
- If so, then aristotles teleological view of reality is valid. This is plausible because Aristotle’s teleological view directly aligns with the idea that natural phenomena are directed toward ends or purposes, providing a coherent framework to explain the world.
- So, (2)
Aristotle’s argument from the prime mover
- Motion and change in the world require a first cause that is unchanging and eternal.
This is plausible because an infinite chain of causes seems impossible, so there must be a first cause that itself is not caused—an unchanging prime mover.
2.If so, then the prime mover exists. This is plausible because the concept of a Prime Mover logically follows from the need for an initial, unchanging source to account for the motion and change we observe. - So, (2)
Objections and replies to the theory of forms
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.
Objections and replies against Aristotle’s prime mover
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.