plato/aristotle Flashcards
the world of forms
the world we live in is a poor imitation of the real world
Form- idea of what a thing is, and what makes something that which it is - everlasting and exist in a different layer of reality
republic - socrates asks glaucon to imagine an underground cave in which there are prisoner who cannot remember a different way of living.
they are chained facing the backwall of the cave and can only see light from a fire behind them. people walk behind them, carrying different objects, causing shadows to be thrown onto the cave wall where the prisoners can see them.
all they see are shadows
unable to distinguish reality and appearance and dont know that there is a difference
- how human beings live in the world, contrasting reality versus our interpretation of it
forms for everything?
Ambiguous - is there a form for everything?
- at points, seems to argue that there are only forms for opposites, eg. beauty and ugliness
- But in the republic he talks of forms for everything - this could include the most basic particles - (unclear to the extent as to which the forms can be reduced)
Wittgenstein argued that there is no precisely definable form or abstract ideal of a category. He gave an example of a family picture. There are similarities between the members of the family, but it would be absurd to suggest that recognition of that required understanding of or the existence of perfect abstracted form of that family
we recognize a member of a category as such due to its family resemblances to other things in that category. The world is not a set of definable categories which the human mind can perfectly divide up.
The categories are determined by social convention, not objective reality.
The FORMS COULD JUST BE HUMAN IDEAS, having no independent existence. “Justice” could be what Richard Dawkins calls A MEME – idea passed from person to person uncritically, like virus.
third man argument
Aristotle introduced the Third Man Argument. If the world of Forms exists, there is a perfect Form of Man.
This Form would have to be based on a Form of the Form of a Man and this too would have to be based on a higher Form, and so forever - there could be an infinite regress of forms, this outlines the idea that the Forms have no meaning or true valid explanation
Plato claims that if there is a group of things which share characteristics, like a group of trees, then the explanation is that they must all be partaking in a form of treeness. However, Aristotle argues that we then have a new group of things which share characteristics, the trees and the form of treeness, which according to Plato’s logic must therefore have a form in which they partake, yet that simply creates a new group of things which share characteristics which require another form and so on ad infinitum (forever – an infinite regress). This seems to undermine the idea of the forms that there is a particular single form of a quality that explains the multiple particular instances of that quality we experience in the world of appearances.
form of the good
The form of the good is illustrated by Plato in the cave analogy by the sun, in that it both illuminates and allows us to see the world of the forms, and yet also nourishes and is responsible for all the existence of life and all the other forms. This makes it is the highest form.
Illuminates the other Forms - eg Justice is a form of goodness
We recognise particular examples of goodness because they correspond to our innate concept of the Form of the Good
Understanding the form of the good makes it impossible for you to do wrong and so Plato says a philosopher with that understanding should rule as a ‘philosopher king’.
Aristotle disagrees with Plato’s idea that the cause of immorality is ignorance of the good. Aristotle claims that cultivating virtue is a requirement to do good. Merely knowing what is good is not enough to make yourself morally perfect.
We could add evidence to Aristotle’s point, that arguably nowhere in human history has a morally perfect person ever existed.
Nietzsche called Plato’s form of the good a ‘dangerous error’ and said that philosophers often invent ideas that suit their emotional prejudices, such as desire for power
however, empiricism
Plato would respond that 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.
Plato’s theory lacks empirical validity. Aristotle thought that Plato’s theory of forms was an unnecessary hypothesis, because it has no explanatory power regarding our experience. Plato’s forms are unchanging, but therefore cannot explain the change we experience in the world. Aristotle concluded that the forms are “nonsense, and even if they do exist, they are wholly irrelevant”.
it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. David Hume,
This is like an early version of Ockham’s razor and is a general principle in empiricist epistemology, that we should not believe explanations that are unnecessarily complicated, such as a world of forms, when we have a simpler theory that works.
- insists that the Forms exist outside of the mind and that they have real essences, yet they are also invisible to the senses
- the existence of the world of forms is beyond verification - no evidence for metaphysical existence beyond the reality we experience
therefore no way we can test them, using experiments or experience.
four causes
ARISTOTLE argued that there was no concrete evidence for Plato’s claims, and that knowledge on a form of a thing can come from evidence
more helpful to focus our efforts on what we can see and feel around us in order to understand how the world works and how best to live
our world may be changeable, the knowledge one can gain from studying its processes and changes is true and valuable in our everyday lives
causes can be proved by the senses and experience.
The human body can be used to prove purpose, as eyelashes keep dust from getting in them.
Material cause: what a thing is made of.
Formal cause: what the essence or defining characteristic of a thing is.
Efficient cause: what brings the being into existence.
Final cause – telos (purpose): the end goal of a thing. The final state which a thing is disposed towards by its nature.
Francis Bacon (17th century), called the father of empiricism, was instrumental in influencing the development of modern science. He criticised Aristotle, claiming that final causation (telos/purpose) has no place in empirical science but is a metaphysical issue
Sartre argued that there was no objective telos/purpose because “existence precedes essence” meaning humans exist before they have a defined purpose and so have to subjectively define their purpose for themselves
prime mover
Aristotle had the belief that there is a Prime Mover which is unmoved. Aristotle holds the view that change is eternal.
through the act of thought and by the final cause of things to seek their own perfection - the Prime Mover was The Final Cause.
- impossibility to initiate movement without being moved itself
- status of activity as ‘pure thought’ seems to contradict Aristotle’s empirical view of the world - no genuine experience or evidence
- empirical science shows how magnetism works, but not demonstrated how it can be imitated by a planet
Aristotle observed that if an object is moved, it keeps moving and then stops. He concluded that objects which are moved simply run out of movement after a while and return to what he thought must be the natural state of objects: at rest. He therefore thought that motion (the world of flux) requires explanation.
“You never step into the same river twice” Heraclitus (c540 – c480BC). Aristotle agreed with this – everything is subject to change.
Newton challenged Aristotle’s belief that an object which is moved will simply stop moving by itself. Newton claimed instead that when moved, an object will move until met by an equal and opposite reaction.
