Ancient Philosophy

Plato

• Pre-Christian

• Was a ‘rationalist’ and ‘dualist’

Plato’s cave A01

• Aims to show Plato’s idea most people’s understandings of reality is far from the truth.

• Humans are held captive, as if prisoners in a cave, by appealing allure of material things.

• Beyond the ‘cave’ is true reality, showing all things on Earth are a shadow of their perfect versions of themselves in another realm. These perfect versions = forms.

• We have knowledge of this in our eternal soul but forget when body limits our understanding to material things.

• Analogy of the cave conveys it will be hard when we find true reality, we may be totally rejected

Rationalism

Plato’s epistemological theory that knowledge can only be gained via a priori knowledge (reason)

Form of Good

Anyone who understands the Form Of the Good becomes a morally perfect person.

Chief problem with Plato’s forms

In Parmenides, he exposes some flaw:
1. What is the exact relationship between form & the particular? How is the form incarnated in the particular? E.g. How can the form ‘dog’ be infused into each individual dog while remaining individual and one

The second problem with Plato’s forms

• The limits: Socrates would say there is a form for beauty, truth, justice. Aristotle pointed out this must mean there is a perfect form of a half-drunk tea & other ridiculous things.

• There can’t be a single form of ‘good’ as goodness always related to certain actions, situations & people. There is no single ‘good’ as no two situations are the same.

Plato’s argument from recollection

• Plato justifies the existence of an immaterial soul and world of forms through his argument from recollection.

• We have ideas of perfect things, like the idea of two sticks being perfectly equal in length, or a perfect circle or perfect justice. 

• However, we have never experienced such perfect things in the world of appearances

• So, we must have apprehended these ideas from a world of perfect forms, where perfect forms of circles and justice exist. Our imperfect body couldn’t be part of that perfect realm.

• We now gain knowledge through anamnesis, where experience of particulars triggers a recollection of the perfect forms they partake in.

Counter to Plato’s argument from recollection

• Hume counters this by suggesting things like beauty and justice are subjective. Despite this, Plato’s argument may work in a logical level e.g. geometry.

• However, Hume suggests we can create the idea of perfection ourselves. Through abstract negotiation, we can imagine what in ‘imperfect’ thing ‘not imperfect’

• So, it seems we can explain perfect concepts without a soul or realm of forms.

• Moreover, even if we were born with the idea of perfect concepts, it would be a leap to think a soul or realm is the reason

Aristotle’s PM

• The ultimate source of motions can’t derive its motions from something else, therefore, must be unmoveable with no potentiality to change.

• Must be immaterial as it’s immutable, Aristotle thought immaterial things couldn’t push / pull physical beings therefore not the efficient cause of the universe

• The final PM = pure actuality

Conclusions made about God from Prime Mover

• God doesn’t depend on anything else for existence

• Eternal due to lack of potential

• Immaterial, beyond time and space

• PM is final cause of all, draws everything to it

Reason behind Aristotle’s Prime Mover

if you roll a ball, it will stop. However, planets & stars haven’t stopped, therefore must be a PM sustaining motion and the terrestrial motion and change we see.

Strengths of the PM

• Natural things seem to have a telos

• PM explains why change occurs as it attracts everything

• Provides an answer to everything having an ultimate purpose

• Explains why there is perpetual motion

Weakness of PM

• Observation of purpose is a human construct

• No intrinsic purpose for things

• If PM is pure through thinking, how can there be a casual connection with the universe

• PM cannot be observed via senses. Theory moves away from empiricism > rationalism and therefore subject to same criticisms as Plato

Aristotle’s 4 causes

• Material - what something is made from

• efficient - what brings an object about

• Formal - shape / form of object

• Final - Purpose for which the object exists

Pro’s of 4 causes

• Empiricism is applicable to life & scientific inquiry as we rely on sense, observation, etc.

• Efficient cause explains potentiality > actuality e.g. metal > ring

• Final cause = most important, answers why world / objects are the way they are

• If an object fulfils its purpose, it is good. Good is not found in another world (forms) but intrinsic to object itself

Cons of 4 causes

• no material cause of beauty

• Effect isn’t always a result of cause (Hume)

• Purpose has many issues: purpose is given by creator, it can change, some don’t have it

• Plato would argue senses deceive us so we should use reason

• Goodness may not be linked to purpose

Issue for Aristotle

As Aristotle claims everything moves towards a telos, he misunderstood the purpose of an object can be subjective e.g. an old suitcase may be designed to carry luggage however, someone may use it as a chair. ‘Purpose’ isn’t an objective law of nature

A flaw in Aristotle’s four causes

Aristotle states towards the end of book IV of the Metaphysics, using the four causes to conclude the cause of something only leads to wondering, what causes the causes?

E.g. what is the formal cause of the formal causes? which explains their existence?