1. To what extent is Aristotle's use of the senses (empiricism) to make
sense of reality more convincing than Plato's reliance on
reason(rationalism)?
INTRO: Plato and Aristotle are usually understood to have completely
contrasted philosophical approaches. although Plato was Aristotle’s
teacher at the Academy in Athens, Aristotle rejected Plato’s focus on
metaphysics and reason, choosing instead to explore the limits of
observation. Aristotle’s philosophical approach has more influence today.
while modern science has moved way beyond some of the theories which
Aristotle proposed on the basis of observation such as that knowledge
must begin with this observation and reason shouldn't stray too far from
what is observed. this means that it can be argued that Aristotle’s use of
empiricism is more convincing.
PARA 1: The platonic world of the forms and the idea that knowledge is a
form of remembrance lacks evidence, whereas Aristotle's theory of
causality is confirmed by the sense observation, and it is overall a more
coherent approach.
Plato believed there was a greater reality beyond the world we
experience, accessible through a priori reasoning (reasoning is
independent of experience).--the world of forms
he explains in his book 'The Republic', that everything in this world
was in a process of change; the Forms, in contrast, are the
permanent, eternal, immutable, intangible, perfect essences of
objects (particulars) found in the world of Appearances.
the platonic thesis can be understood through the analogy of the
cave. this is where the prisoners were trapped in the cave,
watching shadows on the wall, are representative of those who
merely rely on the senses, and are only subject to a false perception
of reality ( a mindset which Plato called "eikasia" which was
translated as image/likeness).
, Brian Davies argues there must be true forms of abstract concepts,
such as beauty or justice, as otherwise we would never be able to
debate and discuss them; anyone could argue what justice was,
depending on how well they argued it. "Justice is whatever is in the
interest of the stronger".
(-) the platonic form however is not wholly valid, Karl Popper argues
plato was searching for permanence and perfection in a world of
uncertainty when really we must just accept the world for the way it
is--one may argue that it is an inductive leap of logic to arrive at the
forms from a premise that there must be truth, which all things have
in common.
PARA 2: whereas Plato believed an ultimate reality existed beyond this
world, accessible only through reason, Aristotle used the empirical
method in order to explain the world around him.
one can come to a closer understanding of the matter of things
through a process of reflective categorization via analysis of the four
causes
e.g., the bronze statue--the material cause is bronze, the formal
cause is its shape, the efficient cause is the means it came about
(statue maker), and its final cause is the telos (honouring God).
shows the empirical method is quite clear and observable
in addition, believed everything was in a state of flux where things
change from potentiality to actuality (e.g. a log into a bench) via the
4 causes, as a result of being inspired by the Prime Mover, accepts
the universe is changing because things are fulfilling their purposes,
unlike Plato and Heraclitus who seem to be worried about the fact
our world changes.
(-) one may question the four causes, in particular the final cause--
based on a teleological worldview. not everything seems to have a
purpose, and many things can be used for alternative purposes ( a
cricket bat could be used to kill zombies and not to play cricket)
, whereas one can criticize Plato for searching for perfection, Aristotle
seems to search for a purpose-- Aristotle's theory would be more
meaningful in today's society where there are understanding of
things that are never perfect.
PARA 3: Platonic rationalism lacks practical value whereas Aristotle
focuses on a posterior knowledge and reliance upon the senses is far
more practical
the recollection argument-- we can appreciate beautiful things
without knowing exactly what it is that's beautiful
Plato argues we have the innate ability to recognize the forms as
our souls which have experienced them prior to our birth--
uneducated slave in 'Meno' can learn Pythagoras' theorem as he has
experienced it before
Iris Murdoch 'Metaphysics as a guide to morals'-- Platonists put
emphasis on pursuing the 'good life' without necessarily knowing
what this is.
(-) argued that practical knowledge is far more useful. Ayer explains
Plato's forms as "primitive superstition"-- good is not an actual thing
that needs something corresponding to it, much like "nothing" is an
absence of something. Aristotle argued true knowledge was gained
through experience which seems far more practical. it is true that
we learn how to do things like riding a bike through experience, not
by the thought of someone.
HOWEVER, a priori knowledge of permanent, unchanging concepts
seems far stronger. it gives permanence and certainty in a world of
change. In addition, it is because of this changing world that there
must be an opposite-- the unchanging world of forms and the Form
of Good.
PARA 4: although the simile of the Cave may not tell us anything about
reality directly, it cannot be proven empirically and seems flawed in parts,
, it teaches us integral lessons about questioning reality to gain a deeper
epistemological stance.
Descartes said that we must be able to "detach ourselves from our
prejudices and simultaneously our senses" in the preface to his
"meditations"
the analogy of the cave and the platonic thesis of the forms hold
greater value than Aristotle's four causes which urges us to question
our beliefs in order to gain a deeper epistemological position. for
example, many claim they are lovers of beauty without ever
stopping to question what true beauty is.
(-) idea of the forms is ridiculous; we can question reality and
knowledge without having to postulate on a separate metaphysical
world of perfection. plato seems to dismiss the beauty of our world,
with the dark and dingy cave hardly being a fitting representation of
our world. Stephen law argues that metaphysical explanations are
always absurd.
HOWEVER, the analogies and similes of plato only become clear
when we interpret them as metaphors, for questioning reality to
gain stronger epistemological positioning
within the analogy of the cave, plato highlights that the true
philosopher will be mocked upon his return back to the
unenlightened prisoners--those who have not experienced deeper
truth will find the forms harder to accept and will prefer the comfort
of Aristotle's empiricism.
2. critically compare Plato's form of the good to Aristotle's Prime Mover
PARA 1: one may criticize Plato's rational apriori method to reach the
knowledge of the Form of the Good, thus favouring Aristotle's Prime Mover
as it seems to be based on a posteriori observation. this makes arguable
sense for something to exist that inspires the change that we can
observe.
sense of reality more convincing than Plato's reliance on
reason(rationalism)?
INTRO: Plato and Aristotle are usually understood to have completely
contrasted philosophical approaches. although Plato was Aristotle’s
teacher at the Academy in Athens, Aristotle rejected Plato’s focus on
metaphysics and reason, choosing instead to explore the limits of
observation. Aristotle’s philosophical approach has more influence today.
while modern science has moved way beyond some of the theories which
Aristotle proposed on the basis of observation such as that knowledge
must begin with this observation and reason shouldn't stray too far from
what is observed. this means that it can be argued that Aristotle’s use of
empiricism is more convincing.
PARA 1: The platonic world of the forms and the idea that knowledge is a
form of remembrance lacks evidence, whereas Aristotle's theory of
causality is confirmed by the sense observation, and it is overall a more
coherent approach.
Plato believed there was a greater reality beyond the world we
experience, accessible through a priori reasoning (reasoning is
independent of experience).--the world of forms
he explains in his book 'The Republic', that everything in this world
was in a process of change; the Forms, in contrast, are the
permanent, eternal, immutable, intangible, perfect essences of
objects (particulars) found in the world of Appearances.
the platonic thesis can be understood through the analogy of the
cave. this is where the prisoners were trapped in the cave,
watching shadows on the wall, are representative of those who
merely rely on the senses, and are only subject to a false perception
of reality ( a mindset which Plato called "eikasia" which was
translated as image/likeness).
, Brian Davies argues there must be true forms of abstract concepts,
such as beauty or justice, as otherwise we would never be able to
debate and discuss them; anyone could argue what justice was,
depending on how well they argued it. "Justice is whatever is in the
interest of the stronger".
(-) the platonic form however is not wholly valid, Karl Popper argues
plato was searching for permanence and perfection in a world of
uncertainty when really we must just accept the world for the way it
is--one may argue that it is an inductive leap of logic to arrive at the
forms from a premise that there must be truth, which all things have
in common.
PARA 2: whereas Plato believed an ultimate reality existed beyond this
world, accessible only through reason, Aristotle used the empirical
method in order to explain the world around him.
one can come to a closer understanding of the matter of things
through a process of reflective categorization via analysis of the four
causes
e.g., the bronze statue--the material cause is bronze, the formal
cause is its shape, the efficient cause is the means it came about
(statue maker), and its final cause is the telos (honouring God).
shows the empirical method is quite clear and observable
in addition, believed everything was in a state of flux where things
change from potentiality to actuality (e.g. a log into a bench) via the
4 causes, as a result of being inspired by the Prime Mover, accepts
the universe is changing because things are fulfilling their purposes,
unlike Plato and Heraclitus who seem to be worried about the fact
our world changes.
(-) one may question the four causes, in particular the final cause--
based on a teleological worldview. not everything seems to have a
purpose, and many things can be used for alternative purposes ( a
cricket bat could be used to kill zombies and not to play cricket)
, whereas one can criticize Plato for searching for perfection, Aristotle
seems to search for a purpose-- Aristotle's theory would be more
meaningful in today's society where there are understanding of
things that are never perfect.
PARA 3: Platonic rationalism lacks practical value whereas Aristotle
focuses on a posterior knowledge and reliance upon the senses is far
more practical
the recollection argument-- we can appreciate beautiful things
without knowing exactly what it is that's beautiful
Plato argues we have the innate ability to recognize the forms as
our souls which have experienced them prior to our birth--
uneducated slave in 'Meno' can learn Pythagoras' theorem as he has
experienced it before
Iris Murdoch 'Metaphysics as a guide to morals'-- Platonists put
emphasis on pursuing the 'good life' without necessarily knowing
what this is.
(-) argued that practical knowledge is far more useful. Ayer explains
Plato's forms as "primitive superstition"-- good is not an actual thing
that needs something corresponding to it, much like "nothing" is an
absence of something. Aristotle argued true knowledge was gained
through experience which seems far more practical. it is true that
we learn how to do things like riding a bike through experience, not
by the thought of someone.
HOWEVER, a priori knowledge of permanent, unchanging concepts
seems far stronger. it gives permanence and certainty in a world of
change. In addition, it is because of this changing world that there
must be an opposite-- the unchanging world of forms and the Form
of Good.
PARA 4: although the simile of the Cave may not tell us anything about
reality directly, it cannot be proven empirically and seems flawed in parts,
, it teaches us integral lessons about questioning reality to gain a deeper
epistemological stance.
Descartes said that we must be able to "detach ourselves from our
prejudices and simultaneously our senses" in the preface to his
"meditations"
the analogy of the cave and the platonic thesis of the forms hold
greater value than Aristotle's four causes which urges us to question
our beliefs in order to gain a deeper epistemological position. for
example, many claim they are lovers of beauty without ever
stopping to question what true beauty is.
(-) idea of the forms is ridiculous; we can question reality and
knowledge without having to postulate on a separate metaphysical
world of perfection. plato seems to dismiss the beauty of our world,
with the dark and dingy cave hardly being a fitting representation of
our world. Stephen law argues that metaphysical explanations are
always absurd.
HOWEVER, the analogies and similes of plato only become clear
when we interpret them as metaphors, for questioning reality to
gain stronger epistemological positioning
within the analogy of the cave, plato highlights that the true
philosopher will be mocked upon his return back to the
unenlightened prisoners--those who have not experienced deeper
truth will find the forms harder to accept and will prefer the comfort
of Aristotle's empiricism.
2. critically compare Plato's form of the good to Aristotle's Prime Mover
PARA 1: one may criticize Plato's rational apriori method to reach the
knowledge of the Form of the Good, thus favouring Aristotle's Prime Mover
as it seems to be based on a posteriori observation. this makes arguable
sense for something to exist that inspires the change that we can
observe.
