p form of the good v a prime mover essay Flashcards
plato v aristotle
The difference between the FOTG and the PM.
Both are significant concepts in ancient philosophy where the Form of the Good is more abstract, while the Prime Mover is more immanent to the physical universe.
The similarity however, between the two, is the argument of a metaphysical entity providing the explanation for our physical reality.
Opinion.
The Prime Mover [Aristotle] is a more persuasive concept than the Form of the Good [Plato] and is more useful to theists.
Why is this an important question to discuss.
It deepens our understanding of the historical foundations of current beliefs and allows us to engage in a broader philosophical conversation.
In what ways can we compare the FOTG and the PM.
We can compare through the relationship with the world.
Its profound influence on the Christian understanding of God however Platonic rationalism lacks practical value and is elitist.
P: We can compare through the relationship with the world.
Neither the Form of the Good nor the Prime Mover is directly involved with the world yet one approach may be more feasible than the other on the grounds of empiricism.
WoF and rationalism is a metaphysical absurdity; Aristotle’s theory of causality confirmed by sense observation is more coherent.
How did Plato’s views of another world come about?
Plato noticed how our world was constantly changing and questioned whether truth could ever be found in an ever-changing world, accessible through a priori reasoning. Thus belief in the existence of another world whereby our world is an imperfect copy of the World of the Forms.
The Forms exist in the World of the Forms as things in this world reflect the forms. Therefore, considered transcendent from the physical world.
The Form of the Good.
The Form of the Good as a result, is eternal, perfect and unchanging and exists in the World of the Forms. It is also where the perfection of the Forms comes from.
Brian Davis
argues that there must be true forms of abstract concepts as otherwise we would never be able to debate and discuss them i.e. anyone could argue what justice was.
How can Plato’s views be conflicted?
Yet, Plato’s claim that there must be Forms for everything can be carried to absurdity. Must there really be the ideal form of chairs, as Stephen Law argues, ‘the form of the bogey.’ Furthermore, if there are forms of every possible number then there are an infinite number of Forms.
What does Bertrand Russel say about Plato’s thinking?
‘Of how many particular things in the world can it be said that there’s a form?’ Therefore, if we are to believe that there is a perfect Form of everything, that is to say there are perfect forms of unpleasant things.
Comparison to Aristotle.
His aim is to explain the world around him as the real world using empirical methods via the analysis of the four causes.
the four causes
material cause- the aspect of the change that is determined by the material which the things are made of.
formal cause- the change caused by the arrangement of the thing.
efficient cause- ‘primary source of change.’ the maker of the object.
final cause- purpose for which something is made.
aristotles pm 1
Aristotle’s Prime mover is imminent in the world. It is connected to the cosmos as it is the cause of all motion and change and while it is separate from the material world in the sense that it is immaterial, it is still actively involved in it.
Aristotle’s Prime Mover.
The Prime Mover, a cause which actualises the potential in everything else and a being with pure actuality. The PM’s perfection moves other things towards Him. So, in a sense, the PM is the final cause of all the things.
Quote from Aristotle.
‘There is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things.’
