Plato and Aristotle Flashcards
Introduction:
Define
Implication/context
Scholar
Conclude
Define: The Form of the Good
a concept in the philosophy of Plato.
The definition of the Good is a perfect, eternal, and changeless Form, existing outside space and time.
It is a Platonic ideal
Define:Forms
A name Plato gives to ideal concepts
Define: Reason
Using logical steps and though processes in order to reach conclusions
Define: Rationalist
Someone who thinks that the primary source of knowledge is reason
Define: Empiricist
Someone who thinks that the primary source of knowledge is experience gained through the five senses
Define: Prime mover
Aristotle’s concept of the ultimate cause of movement and change in the universe
Define: Socratic method
The method of philosophical reasoning and questioning
Define: Analogy
A comparison between one thing and another in an attempt to clarify meaning
Define: Transcendent
Being beyond this world and outside the realms of ordinary experience
Define: Dualism
The belief that reality can be divided into two distinct parts - good/evil physical/non-physical
Define: Aeiton
An explanatory factor/ reason or cause for something
Define: Telos
The end/ final purpose
Define: Theist
Someone who believes in Gods
Implication: What were they trying to disprove
Heraclitus’ statement you cannot step in the same river twice as everything is in a state of ‘flux’ thus true knowledge can never be obtained.
Plato
-The Republic
-A priori
-Rational
concluded with the forms = a perfect eternal realm where FofTG illuminates and gives power to all the Forms
Aristotle
-Empiricist
-A posteriori
if we understand the causal mechanism responsible for change we can gain true knowledge from experience
Prime Mover reason for change in reality, as we are all moving towards our final purpose through the Four causes.
Conclusion
What stance
Who was Plato influenced by
Socrates who believed that must look beyond the surface and ask questions about the physical world
The forms point statement
The forms are an eternal transcendent realm created by a God called the Demiurge where perfect concepts such as beauty and justice exist
The Forms explain
This world everything is imperfect as it is in a flux of change i.e. a tree is in a constant state of decay
-Have knowledge of perfect concepts of perfect circles etc.
-Use rational - must be a perfect immutable realm where these perfect concepts exist
-Have knowledge as souls were there before we were born
First strength of Forms
-Rational
-Uses observations of our knowledge of perfect concepts i.e. beauty and justice
- cannot exist in a world that is constantly changing so must be an eternal realm beyond this one which we once had access too
Counter to the Forms
Justice and beauty are subjective. And are more like matters of opinion rather than fact.
-One person may find a graveyard beautiful all the other person sees is death
Second counter to the Forms
Inductive leap of logic to go from observation that things change to the World of the Forms
Evaluate the Forms criticisms
Reasonable arguments as it is clear that when Forms are pushed to logical extremes they lack coherency i.e. would there be a Form of the Bogey
- Plato fails to address also how subjective ideas would be a form especially as abstract concepts such as beauty need something corresponding with it to have meaning
Link the Forms back to the question
Arguably this suggests…
It is logical to thus assume…
Point: The Form of the Good
The Forms are arranged in a hierarchy and the Form of the Good is at the top
Beneath are abstract concepts such as beauty and justice and beneath that are particulars (objects) such as a tree, cat
-Allows us to see as it illuminates all the other forms
Explain: The Form of the Good
Cave analogy
people are chained to looking at shadows on the wall, thinking that the shadows were reality. Yet when one prisoner broke free and looked outside they were able to see the truth and all the Forms, from the sun , which was the FofTG
Evaluate The Form of the Good
logical to assume that the Forms are arranged in this order, as each human is striving towards good and intrinsically we are always working towards the most moral solution.
Counter to the Form of the Good
Aristotle
‘good’ is subjective and spoken about in many ways and cannot be confined to one area ie. the good in military strategy is how to efficiently kill people, whereas the good in medicine is how to keep people alive
– there cannot be one unified form of goodness
Evaluate criticism to the Form of the Good
-Logical assertion to make as Plato is using good to define a Form without understanding that good can mean many things and cannot be confined to one category
Link Form of Good back to question
Plato’s theory does not make sense
Quick link from Plato to Aristotle
common reaction to Plato’s theory of the Forms is that it lacks empirical evidence, however Plato could respond that it it’s good his theory has no evidence because evidence cannot be trusted as it is merely shadows of the real world of forms that only a priori reason can discover
-To better criticise Plato requires showing that he is wrong to reject evidence.
One way of doing that is by showing how empiricism succeeds, by showing that knowledge can successfully be derived from experience
The Four causes
Things change from Actuality (current state) to potentially (what it could become if certain conditions are met) which then when this change has occurred the potentially will be actuality
This is due to its directional change via the four causes
Explain the four causes
explained via an analogy of a statue: Material cause (bronze) ; formal cause (shape) ; efficient cause (the Statue maker) ; final cause ( used to pray to the Gods). This final cause is called the telos and what everything is working towards, which causes change and movement
Evaluate strengths of four causes
-Strong
-Empirical observations derived from evidence
-Can clearly see thing change in this way
Sartre criticism of the four causes
‘existence precedes essence’
humans exist before they have a defined purpose and so have to subjectively define their purpose for themselves.
Evaluate Sartre’s criticism
This is a psychological argument stating how people cling towards having a purpose or a telos as they are scared about not having a final purpose at all and the intensity of the freedom that comes with that precept.
Counter to Sartre
whilst Sartre raises a valuable point the argument is psychological, he does not provide metaphysical grounds for rejecting telos and so is arguably committing the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy is assuming that the way in which someone comes up with a theory is relevant to whether it is true or false. Just because people have a psychological need to believe in objective purpose, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
Evaluation of counter to Sartre
unsuccessful because it is a misunderstanding of his argument.
Sartre’s starting premise is that there is nothing in our experience of our own mind which suggests we have a telos, and that we all experience ‘radical freedom’ – this is kind of empirical like Aristotle but a different conclusion.
Link four causes back to question
Using Ockam’s razor this is more rational than everything having a purpose as there is no empirical evidence to suggest such a thing even exists, from observing the contingent nature of the world.
Point of prime mover
If we take Aristotle’s hypothesis that the world is moving from potentiality to actuality via the four causes.
must be something that actualises the potential in everything else which Aristotle calls the prime mover
Explain prime mover
constant state of change of cause and effect does not provide satisfactory explanation.
must be a being which is pure actuality and that remains unmoved (otherwise it would be another link in the chain)
Ginal cause of the universe and the final cause of our movement is
just like a cat is drawn to a saucer of milk.
Strengths of prime mover
infinite regression is quite improbableis due to phsycis being probelmsitic, not deterministic. If you shine each photon of light particles through a hole you can’t tell where each individual photon is going to end up.
As all matter is on this level you cant run that backwards as will end up at different point each time, so infinite regression is most likely not possible
Counter to prime mover
whilst this makes a valid point against infinite regression, it seems like an inductive leap of logic to go from their being movement in all things and no infinite chain of cause and effect, to a prime mover that we are all drawn towards. It lacks both validity and logic
e.g. modern science claims that this chain of cause and effect is caused by the big bang which is observable through the expansion of space and the discovery of the CMB (cosmic microwavable background)
