Ancient philosophical influences

Question 1

What is the theory of the forms?

Answer 1

–Plato noticed that the physical world is always changing, and that nothing ever stays the same. He concluded that the things we see around us in the physical world are always in a state of process and change, and therefore they can never be the objects of true knowledge.
–He argued that there’s another reality (world) which is eternal and always stay the same. These realities are concepts, which Plato called ‘Forms’. We gain true knowledge through our reason.
 In Plato’s view, the different things that we see in the physical world around us, and that we learn about through experience by using our five senses, are imitations of their ideal Form. When we see someone doing an act of justice, we recognise it as justice as we have an inner understanding of what the ‘Form of justice’ might be.
–The Forms, then, are perfect examples of different aspects of the world. These forms exist changelessly. They don’t exist within time or space, as they’re concepts rather than ‘things’.
–For Plato, the most important Forms were those of noble qualities, and in particular, the Form of the Good.

Question 2

What is the form of the good?

Answer 2

• -According to Plato, the different Forms were related to each other, and arranged in a hierarchy. The most important of the Forms was the Form of the Good, which illuminates all of the other Forms and gives them their value.
• -Justice, beauty, wisdom and courage are all aspects of goodness, so they’re all the Higher Forms, although not as important as the Forms of the Good. Goodness is seen as the purest of the Forms.
• -Part of Plato’s argument was that if someone knows what’s good and bad, they’ll chose the good. It’s only ignorance which causes immorality. Those who steal or lie are ignorant of the Form of Honesty. If they become more philosophical and looked for the Form of the Good, they would make better moral decisions.

Question 3

Explain Plato’s analogy of the cave

Answer 3

Analogy- A group of prisoners locked in a cave, deep underground, are all positioned to a wall and are unable to move their heads to see the rest of the world. They have lived there since their birth and everyday a fire is set behind them where a group of people (with objects) cast shadows on the wall. As they cannot move their head, the prisoners can only see the shadows being broadcasted on the wall, believing this was reality. Eventually one of the prisoner escapes and makes a slow & painful journey to the outside world. Once outside, he witnesses the sun for the first time and his eyes are burnt from the sunlight (as he has lived in the dark cave for his whole life) which causes him to be blinded for a short period. Gradually his vision returns and he is able to see the beautiful world and learns that the sun is the source of all life. He now understands that his previous life in the cave was a sham and goes to warn the prisoners. He makes another long and painful journey back to the cave and finds it difficult to find the others as he can’t understand this fake world anymore. Once he finds them, they lack the philosopher’s enquiring mind and decide to continue living in their dark dismal world. At first they think the philosopher is just joking, but after realising his ideas challenge their reality and way of life- they threaten to kill him.

Question 4

What does the analogy of the cave represent?

Answer 4

• -The prisoner who escaped was meant to be Socrates and those who executed him were those Ignorant prisoners who had stayed behind and preferred being slaves. (Remember Socrates was Plato’s teacher who was murdered for ‘corrupting the youth’ and openly rejected the gods).
• -The released prisoner also represents those who undertake philosophy. Those in the cave are representative of all those who prefer to live an ‘unexamined life’, and who are content to be impressed with appearances.
• -The ones who are willing to climb the steep slope out of the cave, and to perceive the truth behind the illusions (as a result of our overreliance of the five senses).

Question 5

What does Plato argue?

Answer 5

–Plato argues that the physical world isn’t as ‘real’ as the world of Forms, but this doesn’t convince everyone. It could be argued that the physical world has a very definite reality, for example if you hurt yourself and feel it, then it indicates that the physical world is real.

Question 6

What does Aristotle argue about the theory of the forms?

Answer 6

• -Aristotle argued the Theory of Forms fails when it’s pushed to its logical extremes. It’s hard to accept that there might be ideal forms of negative qualities such as ‘hate’ or ‘disease’. Does it mean that there’s a perfect form of cancer which successfully kills all of its victims?
• -Also we don’t know what the perfect Form of an object looks like. Is the perfect Form of Plant, for example, large or small?

Question 7

What do people argue about Plato?

Answer 7

Some people argue Plato never gives us any compelling reasons for accepting that are two realms- he simply asserts it.

Question 8

Was Plato ambiguous?

Answer 8

Plato was ambiguous about whether there’s a Form for literally everything in the world. He’s not clear about the relation between the Forms and the objects of this world.

Question 9

Can we access these forms?

Answer 9

We can’t access these ‘Forms’ in any way, to determine whether or not they exist or what their nature is; there’s no way that we could test them, using experiments and experience. Aristotle believes we should focus our efforts on things we can see around us if we want to understand how the world works and how best to live.

Question 10

What is Plato’s belief about the physical world?

Answer 10

Plato’s belief that the physical world is inferior to the spiritual world of the Forms available to the soul through reason. Critics argue that this ideas means our bodily pleasures are bad, and that people should punish their body’s if we want to make spiritual progress. So we should wear and eat anything that’s plain, and avoid pleasure for its own sake as Plato saw physical pleasures as unimportant in comparison to philosophy.

Question 11

What do critics and A.J. Ayer say about the form of the good?

Answer 11

Critics argue that the Form of the Good being the highest kind of knowledge that underpins everything else is nonsense as everyone doesn’t share a concept of goodness and can know what it is.
A.J. Ayer said when we talk of something being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we’re simply expressing our own emotional reaction to it, and not referring to any real knowledge. Aristotle argued there can’t be a single Form of the Good, as goodness always relates to specific actions, situations and people. There can’t be just Goodness itself, on its own, not in relation to anything. Aristotle argued morality can’t be eternal and changeless with a single ‘right answer’, as no two situations are the same.

Question 12

Evaluate Plato’s form of the good

Answer 12

• -Plato’s view of goodness is unfair to those with certain intellectual calibre or learning disabilities as they can’t understand philosophical issues as well as others. Plato has an elitist approach, but most would agree that better philosophers are always more, moral people than less intellectually gifted.
• -People who do wrong sometimes know that it’s morally wrong, but still go ahead with it. So they don’t do wrong because they’re ignorant of what’s right.

Question 13

What is Aristotle’s belief about the physical world?

Answer 13

o Unlike Plato, he believed that the physical world around us is the key to knowledge, we can learn about the world from using our senses.
o This made him an Empiricist (unlike Plato who was a Rationalist) as he used all five senses.
o He recognised that something can have several different explanations for its existence on different levels. If I asked what’s the cause’ of my desk, I can answer it in a variety of different ways. I could say, for example, it exists in order to fulfil a purpose- such as doing my work on, rather than doing it on the floor.

Question 14

What is Aristotle’s four causes?

Answer 14

• material cause
• formal cause
• efficient cause
• final cause

Question 15

What is material cause?

Answer 15

Material cause- the matter or substance from which something is made from. (For example humans are made up of several types of cells).

Question 16

What is formal cause?

Answer 16

Formal Cause – what gives the matter its ‘Form’ or ‘Structure’. (For example the human body)

Question 17

What is efficient cause?

Answer 17

Efficient Cause – the cause of an object or thing existing. This answers the question ‘how did it come about or happen?’

Question 18

What is final cause?

Answer 18

Final cause- the purpose (Telos) of something (in Aristotle’s words, he explained something was ‘good’ when it fulfilled its purpose, such as passing your exam after you revise).

Question 19

Explain Aristotle’s prime mover

Answer 19

• -Aristotle believed that the universe was in a constant state of change and motion. So, he thought, there must be some form of efficient cause, someone or something must have performed some kind of action, to make all this change and motion happen.
• -Aristotle believed the cause of the universe is God, God must be the Prime Mover (a cause which actualises the potential in everything else). But, the Prime Mover must also be something which causes without being affected.
• -In Aristotle’s view, God was the first of all substances. It causes change and motion by attracting other things towards itself. It does nothing; but it’s the object of everything. The final cause of movement is a desire for God.
• -Everything in the universe is drawn towards God’s perfection and want to imitate it, and so by this great attraction, the Prime Mover causes movement in everything else.

Question 20

Explain Aristotle’s conclusion about the nature of God

Answer 20

• -He believed that God (the Prime Mover) doesn’t depend on anything else for his existence. If he did, then he would have to be capable of change (meaning God lives independently and doesn’t rely on anything, unlike human who need sunlight because if the Sun dies out then mankind will die out too).
• -He must also be eternal. If God cannot change, then he cannot cease to be; and if he exists, then he must have always existed.
• -God must be perfectly good, as badness is related to some kind of lacking, an absence of something that ought to be there.
• -God must be immaterial, which also means that he can’t perform any kind of physical activity but instead be purely spiritual, pure thought and not thinking about anything which could cause it to change; which led Aristotle to conclude that God must think only of himself and his own perfect nature.
• -The Prime Mover relates to Aristotle’s ideas about causation. The Prime Mover is the final cause of everything that exists in the universe, not only in the sense of being the origin of everything, but also in the sense of being the purpose of everything. God is the telos for everything in the universe.

Question 21

Give an evaluation of Aristotle’s thought

Answer 21

• -Some criticise Aristotle for his rejection of Plato’s belief as he should have been more willing to accept the possibility that we can gain knowledge through other means, as well as through the physical world.
• -Aristotle’s belief that the universe must have a telos has also be criticised by those who believe the universe was made by chance as they explain that it makes no sense to talk of a ‘purpose for the universe’.
• -Many religious people (Theists) have also argued about the concept of Aristotle’s Prime Mover as his perception of God is almost irrelevant to the universe as he has no interaction with it and is unaffected by it.

Question 22

How does Plato’s Form of the Good compare with Aristotle’s Prime Mover?

Answer 22

• -Both of their work has been influential on the Christian understanding of God. Plato’s understanding of the forms of the Good gives Christians the concept of God as a perfect source of goodness, with an ultimate reality and existence which is permanent and unchanging, unlike the temporary nature of this physical world and of the human goodness. Aristotle’s understanding of a Prime Mover gives an understanding of a God who’s the ultimate cause of all that exists but is himself not caused by anything else.
• -Both of the Form of the Good and the Prime Mover, like the Christianity’s God, exists necessarily.
• -Also like Christianity’s God, the Form of the Good and Prime Mover don’t take an interest in the moral affairs of humanity. The Form of the good doesn’t have a mind which takes an interest anything; the Prime Mover can’t interact with the world. They’re both understood as being perfect, neither is capable of noticing or caring whether we behave morally.
• -One difference is that the Form of the Good isn’t a ‘being with a mind’ (it has no intentions or emotions) while the Prime Mover draw things to itself by attraction. The Prime Mover thinks of its own perfect nature, while the Form of the Good can’t. The form of the Good is just goodness, whereas the Prime Mover is more to do with motion, cause and change rather than morality. The Form of the good is something which we can possibly encounter when we leave this physical world, but there’s no suggestion we will ever gain further knowledge of the Prime Mover after death.

Question 23

How does Plato’s rationalism compare with Aristotle’s empiricism?

Answer 23

• -Plato’s rationalism presents us with the view that reason is the ultimate way to gain knowledge. Plato supports rationalism as he believes the physical world of constant change cannot give us the certainty that we need in order to gain knowledge.
• -Because of Aristotle’s empiricist belief, he explains that the primary source of all knowledge is experience. For an empiricist, we encounter the world through our senses first, and then we use these sense experiences to form our concepts. The mind can reach knowledge by reflecting on sense experiences, but, according to the empiricist, sense experience has to come first.
• -Many, however, argue that there is no need to choose between using reason and using sense experience to gain knowledge; we can use both together. In some areas of knowledge, reason is more important (such as in maths) but in other areas of knowledge we need to be both rational and use our senses in order to reach understanding.