Philosophy 1 Flashcards
In Aristotle’s view, what is the final cause of man, and how does this impact his ethical and political views?
Because we are essentially rational, Aristotle argues that rationality is our final cause and that our highest aim is to fulfill our rationality. This argument has a deep impact both on Aristotle’s ethics and on his politics. The good life, for which all our virtue and wisdom prepares us, consists primarily of rational contemplation, and the purpose of the city-state is to arrange matters in such a way as to maximize the opportunities for its citizens to pursue this good life.
What is Teleology, and why was it a central idea behind Aristotle’s philosophy?
Teleology is the study of the ends or purposes that things serve, and Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology has repercussions throughout his philosophy. Aristotle believed that the best way to understand why things are the way they are is to understand what purpose they were designed to serve. For example, we can dissect an animal to see how its anatomical organs look and what they’re made of, but we only understand each organ when we perceive what it’s supposed to do. Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology implies that there is a reason for everything
How does Aristotle determine how one thing is more fundamental in its hierarchy than another?
Aristotle thinks that he can approach this most fundamental thing by examining definition. Properly speaking, a definition should list just those items without which the thing defined could not exist as it is. For instance, the definition of a toe should mention a foot, because without feet, toes could not exist. Since we cannot define toes without making mention of feet, we can infer that feet are more fundamental than toes. A substance, then, is something whose definition does not rely on the existence of other things besides it.
Explain Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s theory of forms
The Rejection of Plato’s Theory of Forms
By rejecting Plato’s Theory of Forms, Aristotle clears the way for his empirical approach, which emphasizes observation first and abstract reasoning second. Aristotle received his philosophical education at Plato’s Academy, so it is natural that he would feel obliged to justify at length why he departs from the doctrines of his teacher. He provides detailed arguments against many of Plato’s doctrines in almost all of his major works, focusing in particular on the Theory of Forms. In Aristotle’s view, this theory is essentially an assertion of the superiority of universals over particulars. Plato argues that particular instances of, say, beauty or justice exist only because they participate in the universal Form of Beauty or Justice. On the contrary, Aristotle argues that universal concepts of beauty and justice derive from the instances of beauty and justice in this world. We only arrive at a conception of beauty by observing particular instances of beauty, and the universal quality of beauty has no existence beyond this conception that we build from particular instances. By saying that the particulars come first and the universals come after, Aristotle places emphasis on the importance of observing the details of this world, which stands as one of the important moments in the development of the scientific method.
What was Aristotle’s contribution to the biological sciences?
Aristotle develops an ingenious system of classifying the various kinds of living organisms according to species and genus, among other things, and proceeds to find systems for classifying everything from the forms of poetry to the categories of being. Most important, perhaps, is that Aristotle draws from his biological research a keen eye for detail and an emphasis on observation as the key to knowledge.
Why did Aristotle see the practical sciences as helplessly vague?
The Vagueness of the Practical Sciences
Aristotle rarely sets down hard and fast rules in the practical sciences because those fields are naturally inclined to a degree of vagueness. Aristotle is generally credited with being the first thinker to recognize that knowledge is compartmentalized. For example, he recognizes that the practical sciences, such as ethics or politics, are far less precise in their methods and procedures than, say, logic. This is not a failure of ethics and politics to live up to some ideal, but rather just the nature of the beast. Ethics and politics deal with people, and people are quite variable in their behavior. In the Politics, Aristotle seems to waver in determining what kind of constitution is best, but this is not so much ambiguity on his part as a recognition that there is no single best constitution. A thriving democracy relies on an educated and unselfish population, and failing that, another form of government might be preferable. Similarly, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle does not lay down any hard and fast rules regarding virtue because different behaviors are virtuous in different situations. The vagueness of Aristotle’s recommendations regarding the practical sciences are then a part and parcel of his general view that different forms of study require different approaches.
Describe Aristotle’s argument of the unmoved mover
The Unmoved Mover As First Cause
Aristotle’s theology is based on his perception that there must be something above and beyond the chains of cause and effect for those chains to exist at all. Aristotle perceives change and motion as deep mysteries. Everything is subject to change and motion, but nothing changes or moves without cause. Tracing how things cause one another to change and move is the source of many of Aristotle’s most fundamental insights. He believes that all causes must themselves be caused and all motion must be caused by something that is already in motion. The trouble with this belief is that it leads to an infinite regress: if all causes have antecedent causes, there is no first cause that causes motion and change to exist in the first place. Why is there change and motion rather than stillness? Aristotle answers that there must be a first cause, an unmoved mover, that is the source of all change and motion while being itself unchanging and unmoving. To motivate the heavens to move, this unmoved mover must be perfect, so Aristotle comes to associate it with God.
To Hume, what is the difference between impressionism and ideas?
Hume begins by distinguishing between impressions and ideas. Impressions are sensory impressions, emotions, and other vivid mental phenomena, while ideas are thoughts or beliefs or memories related to these impressions. We build up all our ideas from simple impressions by means of three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect.
Hume- what is necessary for future predictions yo be made?
we cannot justify future predictions from past experience without some principle that dictates that the future will always resemble the past.
Hume- what is the difference between ideas and matters of fact?
Relations of ideas are, for the most part, mathematical truths, so denial of them would result in a contradiction. Matters of fact are the more common truths that we learn from experience. Denying a matter of fact is not contradictory.
For the most part, we understand matters of fact according to cause and effect, where a direct impression will lead us to infer some unobserved cause. For instance, I know the sun will rise tomorrow based on past observations and my understanding of cosmology, even though I have yet to observe this fact directly.
Hume- Why is there no rational justification for believing in cause and effect?
we cannot justify future predictions from past experience without some principle that dictates that the future will always resemble the past. This principle can also be denied without contradiction, and there is no way it can be justified in experience. Therefore, we have no rational justification for believing in cause and effect. Hume suggests habit, and not reason, enforces a perception of necessary connection between events. When we see two events constantly conjoined, our imagination infers a necessary connection between them even if it has no rational grounds for doing so.
Why are inferences based on matters of fact based in probability?
Our inferences regarding matters of fact are ultimately based in probability. If experience teaches us that two events are conjoined quite frequently, the mind will infer a strong causal link between them.
Describe the skepticism of Hume in relation to inferences being justified by reason.
If we are left with only matters of fact to get us by in the world, however, we find ourselves greatly limited. How can past experience teach me anything about the future? Even to infer without circularity that future experience will resemble past experience requires some principle that cannot be grounded in past experience. Without that principle, our ability to reason according to cause and effect, and thus the greater part of our ability to reason with matters of fact, is sharply curtailed.
We should be careful to note the tone Hume’s skepticism takes here, however. Rather than conclude that we cannot know anything about future events or the external world, he concludes that we are not rationally justified in believing the things we do. Hume does not deny that we make certain inferences based on causal reasoning, and indeed insists that we would be unable to live if we didn’t do so. His point is simply that we are mistaken if we think that these inferences are in any way justified by reason. That is, there are no grounds for certainty or proof of these inferences.
Why is Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding a book about epistemology?
Hume is concerned about what and how we know, and not at all about what is actually the case. For instance, he does not deal with the question of whether there actually are necessary connections between events, he simply asserts that we cannot perceive them. Or perhaps more accurately, Hume argues that, because we cannot perceive necessary connections between events, the question of whether or not they actually exist is irrelevant and meaningless
What is the difference between a premise and a conclusion?
Premises are statements that directly support the conclusion. A simple argument has two premises and a conclusion; a more complex argument may contain many claims, but these can always be divided up into groups of three–two premises and a conclusion. In an argument, the conclusion is only supported by its two premises, but each premise itself can be supported in a number of ways:
