Ancient Philosophical Influences Flashcards
What is Plato’s cave analogy?
-Prisoners are chained facing a blank wall inside the cave. Behind them is a fire which throws shadows on the wall as people walk past it carrying objects- the prisoners think the shadows are real.
-The cave represents our material world. The prisoners are in this lesser world, only using their senses which deceive (the shadow objects are “real”)
-One prisoner released and sees the real world outside the cave. This is like the philosopher who uses reason.
-He can see the sun- the highest of all forms (The Form of the Good) as it illuminates all other forms and enables them to be known through reason.
-Therefore, Plato is showing that using reason is superior to using the senses.
The Analogy of the Cave is helpful:
-It shows how the senses deceive us. For example, when we put a pencil in water, it looks bent even though it’s not. This is like the prisoners in the cave- what we observe is only partial reality.
-Senses can trap us- like the chained prisoners who didn’t want to listen to the insights of the returned prisoner. We can be closed minded and not want to consider other ways of thinking. It is better to use reason and be open to new ideas.
The Analogy of the Cave is unhelpful:
- The analogy of the cave is too abstract when Plato relates it to the World of the Forms. Modern people do not want to think about another world, they place more importance on the world we experience here and now through the senses.
What are Plato’s theory of the forms?
It is Plato’s explanation about why things in this world change and what is real. Plato argues that there are two worlds: the world of appearances and the world of the forms.
What is the World of Appearances?
This is OUR world where things appear to be real but are not permanent and so they change and decay and eventually die. The material world we experience is like the cave in the analogy because it gives the illusion of being real but is only a poor imitation of reality.
The senses restrict us, like the prisoners’ chains in the cave, and we rely on what we can see, hear and touch. An example would be of a beautiful flower- Plato would argue that the flower is a particular or phenomena that will change and become less beautiful over time. Why do we disagree about what’s beautiful? Plato argues that it is because our opinions are based on the senses, which are unreliable.
What is the World of the Forms?
This world contains the immutable, perfect and eternal Forms or ideals. For Plato, this is the REAL world because reality does not change, it remains constant. The World of the Forms can be understood through reason rather than through the senses. Like the world outside the cave, the World of the Forms is superior to the World of Apperances. For example, instead of shadows in the cave, grey and two dimensional, the released prisoner sees the colours of the real world and understands truth. This is like the philosopher whose mind is enlightened by the Form of the Good and who can now understand reality.
The theory of the Forms makes sense:
- We observe that everything in the World of the Appearances is changing, everything decays and dies. There is nothing that is permanent or perfect. It makes sense that there is a world where things are eternal, immutable and perfect (The World of the Forms)
- We can be deceived by our senses, so it is better to use reason to understand how things really are.
- The World of the Forms contains the ideals and forms, for example the Form of the Good, the Form of Beauty and the Form of Justice. These concepts dont change. We recognise beauty in different things such as a puppy or sunset because they participate in the Form of Beauty to some extent. We may disagree on what is beautiful because we form opinions based on experiences rather than reason.
The theory of the Forms makes no sense:
- Change is better than immutability. Change is an important part of our world. Without change, we could not progress or mature.
- This material world is all we can know and have evidence of. Senses are important to help us learn and survive.
- Using reason is difficult. How do we know if we are right if we disagree? It is better to rely on our senses because they provide verifiable evidence.
What did Aristotle believe?
Aristotle disagreed with Plato. He argued that knowledge comes from our observations and experiences, which we use our senses.
Aristotle, like Plato, observed that everything in our world is changing. The Greek word he used to describe this movement/change is ‘motus.’ Aristotle noticed that beings changed, from actuality to potentiality, caused by external forces. For example, the kettle is full with water and has the potential to become hot.
What are Aristotle’s 4 causes?
- The Material Cause- describes the matter/substance that something is made from. For example, silver is the material cause of a silver ring.
- The Efficient Cause- describes the process of coming into existence. The efficient cause of a ring would be the silversmith who used the matter (a lump of silver- the material) to make the ring. This describes the process of change, from a lump of silver to ring.
- The Formal Cause- describes how we know what something is, its shape and characteristics. The formal cause of a ring is that it has a circular shape. The formal cause explains motus by describing the result of the change from the material cause, through the efficient cause into the object that it is.
- The Final Cause- it is the most important for Aristotle because it describes the telos and purpose of the object. Why is the object here?
Aristotle’s 4 causes give a true picture of reality:
- The material cause is obvious. In order to exist and be observed, all things must be made of physical matter.
- The formal cause helps us to understand what gives something its shape and characteristics. For example, a bird that clucks and pecks may help us to identify a chicken. If the chicken has died, the form has changed (even though the matter is the same) because it does not cluck and peck anymore.
- The final cause explains why everything has a purpose. It is the most important cause because it answers questions about why objects are the way they are.
- If an object fulfills its purpose, it is good. Goodness is not found in another world, like Plato’s Form of the Good, but is intrinsic to the object itself.
- The basis of Aristotle’s empirical theory is applicable to life and scientific enquiry because we rely on senses, observation and experience.
Aristotle’s 4 causes do not give a true picture of reality:
- There is not a material cause of a colour or of a concept such as beauty.
- David Hume argues that we may be able to observe two processes that we call cause and effect, but this does not necessarily mean that the effect was a result of the cause, simply that both are observed.
- There may be disagreements about the formal cause. How do we know which characteristics are essential to the object to make it what it is? In a car, is the formal cause the engine, petrol, wheels or mirrors?
- There may be issues with the idea of purpose —> some things may just not have a purpose, some things may have multiple purposes, purpose does not have to be intrinsic- it is given to an object by its creator- purpose is a human construct?
- Goodness may not be linked to purpose. For example, if a knife cuts my finger instead of the bread, it cuts well but it is still a really good knife?
Does Aristotle’s Prime Mover explain the world?
Aristotle explained that the reason for constant change was the ultimate final cause, the immutable Prime Mover. The PM is the final cause of movement and change because it draws things towards itself, without doing anything itself. For example, the cat looking through a window at a saucer of milk. The milk does not do anything or change itself, it simply attracts the cat which causes the cat to move towards it.
The PM attracts so everything is in a continual cycle of change from actuality to potentiality, back to actuality and so on.
The PM helps to explain the world:
- We can observe that natural things seem to have telos and are drawn towards an end, goal or purpose. The PM explains the reason why change occurs because it draws and attracts everything.
- The PM explains why there is perpetual motion, why the planets move in predictable rotations and why there is no beginning of the universe.
- The PM as the final cause gives everything an ultimate purpose- it gives a final reason why.
Aristotle’s PM does not help to explain the world:
- Observation of purpose is a human construct. Humans give things a purpose, so purpose is something external to an object, not intrinsic. If there is no external purpose, this discredits Aristotle’s reason for motus and there is no need for a final cause,or a prime mover.
- If the PM is pure thought, how can there be any casual connection with the physical universe, as there must be if the PM affects and moves it?
- Aristotle cannot observe the PM using senses. He has moved into rationalism, away from empiricism, and is using reason instead of the senses and so is subject to the same criticisms as Plato.
Comparing Aristotle’s Prime Mover and Plato’s Form of the Good:
Similarities:
- Both are transcendent and cannot be known using the senses- so reason needs to be use to understand them both.
- Both are perfect, unchanging and eternal.
- The PM is the telos of everything and the Form of the Good is the aim of everything- to know and understand the Form of the Good.
Differences:
- The PM draws or attracts all motus towards itself because it is the ultimate final cause or purpose.
- The Form of the Good is unchanging and part of the World of the Forms. Change happens only in the imperfect World of Apperances because it is imitating the Forms, but its imperfect matter will change and decay.
Where are each located and how are they involved in the world?
PM- part of the material universe in an ‘orbit’ beyond the planets. The PM has no connection with things in the world.
FoG- is in the real world (world of the forms) not our world. Participates in all the forms and we can recognise it in things in the World of Appearances, for example we recognise goodness in a person, dog and knife.
Aristotles PM is more successful:
- The PM explains the reason why there is motus- everything is being drawn towards its perfection.
- Aristotle based his theory of the PM on sense experience and the final cause.
- Plato does not clearly explain how the Form of the Good participates in objects or concepts in the World of Appearances whereas Aristotle gives clear explanation. The PM cannot interact as it is pure actuality and simply draws things to itself.
Plato’s Form of the Good is more successful:
- The FoG also explains why there is change in the World of Appearances. It is because things here change and decay but participate in the perfect eternal World of Forms which is immutable.
- However, the PM cannot be observed using the senses. The Form of the Good is not part of this material world so it is better to use reason to work out the truth.
- The FoG explains why we recognise goodness in lots of different things and why things vary in the amount of goodness. For example, we could say a knife is good if it cuts well, a dog is good when it fetches a stick and a human is good if they help others- the form of the good participates in all of these things.
How do we gain knowledge? Plato…
Plato can be described as a rationalist, so he argues that knowledge comes from using reason and recollecting the World of the Forms. His argument is formed on the basis of distrusting the senses- they deceive. For example, a pencil in water will appear bent, when actually it’s not. Our senses prevent us from using reason to access true knowledge which is ultimately found in the World of the Forms- seen in the cave analogy when they’re chained up.
How do we gain knowledge? Aristotle…
Aristotle can be described as an empiricist who argues that we should use our senses to discover knowledge. He argues that true knowledge is found in this material world by observing and categorising things by type and difference. He observed the four causes within the universe (Apperances) However, he resorted to reason to postulate a prime mover to explain why there is constant change.
Empiricism (senses) makes more sense of reality:
- There is no empirical evidence of the existence of another world outside of our senses so we should rely on our senses alone to find out more about reality.
- If there is one Form of the Good, why do we disagree over right and wrong? Is it better to rely on observations- we can observe whether something is good if it fulfils its final cause/purpose.
Rationalism (reason) makes more sense of reality:
- Rationalists would argue that we have a sense of justice or beauty that seems to be innate so surely knowledge is gained through reason.
- We could argue that knowledge comes from the world of the forms. So we remember the form of heat and recognise a lamp is hot. Reason makes sense of reality and what we experience.
- Senses deceive. We all have different opinions on good/bad. If we escape senses (like prisoner in cave) we can understand true form of good. There is more to being good than fulfilling a purpose.
