Ancient Philosophical Influences: Aristotle and Plato Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What does Heraclitus postulate about the world and how do Plato and Aristotle react to this?

A

We are in a constant state of ‘flux.’ We cannot “step in the same river twice.”

Plato would say that this means no true knowledge can be gained through empiricism/sensory experience. We must look to reason alone.

Aristotle would say we can understand the cause of change, and therefore garner true knowledge through the senses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is Plato’s Analogy of the Cave, and what does each aspect represent?

A

Three prisoners (society) are chained up in a cave. They witness shadows on the wall (world of the senses) that are projected via the fire behind them (the sun.)

One day, a prisoner (the philosopher) is freed. He sees the fire and false projections and starts the difficult ascent outside of the cave (reasoning/finding true knowledge.) When he sees the real world outside the cave (the world of the forms), it is illuminated by the sun (the Form of the Good.)

When the prisoner returns, he is laughed the other prisoners and is beaten to death (episteme vs doxa, philosophers not following widespread ideas.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Plato’s Theory of the Forms?

A

Because everything is constantly changing, there must be some immutable truth to the world. For Plato, this is the World of the Forms; Forms being the most perfect iteration of certain objects and concepts. What we witness in reality is merely a crude reflection of the Forms. When we see a beautiful sunset, we are seeing a manifestation of the Form of Beauty. These reflections are called ‘particulars.’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the difference between particulars and Forms?

A

Forms: perfect, immutable, eternal, unchanging.

Particulars: imperfect, fleeting, changeable, mixtures of many traits (impure.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the Hierarchy of the Forms?

A

The Forms of objects are the lowest of the Forms. The Forms of positive concepts (i.e. love and justice) and mathematic and geometric Forms are the higher forms, but lower than the Form of the Good, which illuminates all other Forms.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the weakest argument against the Theory of the Forms?

A

Aristotle might say that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of Forms. However, Plato would see this as a good thing, because the senses are not reliable and are merely illusory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did Nietzsche say about the Form of the Good?

A

It is a “dangerous error” because philosophers often invent ideas that suit their emotional prejudices, and pretend to have figured it out through logic and reason.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the third man argument?

A

Aristotle argues that the Theory of the Forms is susceptible to infinite regress. If we have a form of a man, then there would be a form of a form of a man, and so on.

Plato counters this by saying forms cannot partake in anything but themselves. The form of a man wouldn’t have the same characteristics as the particular of a man because the form is perfect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How does Plato’s argument from recollection adhere to the Theory of the Forms?

A

Because we have innate knowledge of ideas and concepts like love, beauty or the perfect circle, we must have found these out through a priori knowledge before we were born.

Plato goes on to say that this knowledge originated from the World of the Forms because our soul experienced it before being born. Anamnesis is the process of re-remembering the Forms through sensory experience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the point of Aristotle’s Theory of the Four Causes?

A

To go from a cause to an effect (potentiality to actuality), something must go through four causes to reach its telos.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the material cause?

A

What a thing is made of. I.e. a chair is made of wood.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the formal cause?

A

What the essence or defining characteristic of a thing is. I.e. a chair is defined by its shape.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the efficient cause?

A

What brings the thing into existence. I.e. the efficient cause of a wooden chair might be a carpenter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the final cause?

A

The purpose of the thing. I.e. a chair’s final cause is to be sat on.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Why would a scientific perspective reject the existence of a final cause?

A

Science can explain the changes experienced by things without purpose. I.e. the chair would be made out of atoms. Whilst we can give it a purpose, it has no objective purpose coded into it.
Purpose is purely a construct, meaning that it is unscientific.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How would Sartre reject Telos/Final Cause?

A

“Existence precedes essence.” Humans exist before they have a purpose. People cling on to ideas of predetermined purpose because the idea of having freedom to make out own purpose can be daunting. It’s easier to accept objective purpose than face existential angst.

17
Q

What is Plato’s divided line analogy?

A

Imagine a line, with four unevenly distributed points, separated in half. The lower half represents the visible realm and opinion.

Eikasia - delusion or sheer confidence
Pistis - belief or confidence

The higher points represent the intelligible

Dianoia - discursive thought
Noesis - immediate knowing, mental seeing of principles

18
Q

What was the basis for Aristotle’s Prime Mover argument?

A

He observed that if you move an object, the object eventually stops moving, returning to its natural state of rest. But what maintains the motion of the stars? Aristotle suggested an unmoved mover, otherwise there would be an infinite chain of movers that would never move at all.

19
Q

What is the Prime Mover?

A

Pure actuality, an unmoved mover and an uncaused causer. It is responsible for everlasting change in the universe. It is pure thought. It must be a mind, but cannot think about anything outside itself because its thoughts would be subject to change, so it is in a self-contemplating state.

IT IS NOT THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE (THE CREATOR) because Aristotle believed the universe was eternal.

20
Q

How would Newton challenge the idea of a Prime Mover?

A

Aristotle’s Prime Mover theory is based on a misapprehension. Things on Earth don’t just stop, they stop when they meet an equal and opposite reaction, like gravity and friction. It doesn’t stop because rest is a natural state. Therefore, Aristotle’s belief in a constant mover is false.

Ironically, neither Plato nor Aristotle’s views are verifiable or accepted by modern science. So both are equally wrong?

21
Q

How could one defend Aristotle against Newton?

A

Whilst Newton disproved the Prime Mover scientifically, he cannot disregard Aristotle’s method of conceiving the theory. Aristotle’s a posteriori method was a precursor to the empirical scientific method, and Aristotle could be deemed more convincing than Plato because he uses the observable to make inferences on the unobservable.