Plato + Aristotle (old).

What is epistemology?

-The study of how we gain knowledge.

Define rationalism.

-Reason is the primary source of knowledge.

Define empiricism.

-Observations via our senses help us understand the world.

What is a priori knowledge?


-Knowledge prior to an experience.

What are the arguments for empiricism?

-If we have innate knowledge, why don't we have it all the time - we have to learn things like walking; however it may require an experience to bring it from the self conscious to the mind.

-All scientific discoveries are based on empirical observation.

-Ockam's Razor states the simplest theory is the better theory; empiricism is simpler as it is only based on sense experience.

What are the arguments for rationalism?

-Innate knowledge explains how we recognise good/evil without experiencing it firsthand; however, seeing the suffering that evil causes helps us recognise something is evil.

-Rationalism is the only way we have knowledge of reality & other worlds; however it requires a belief & not everyone has one.

What does plato use the story of the cave to explain?


-This world isn't real, the real world is an unchanging world of forms.

-We gain knowledge through our mind, not the senses. Our senses only provide opinions & shadows.

-He believes philosophers should rule because they have the true knowledge - those in power are like cave prisoners.

What are the strengths of Plato's cave analogy?

-Good illustration of those seeking knowledge & meaning in this world & those who are ignorant.

-World of the forms influenced belief in the afterlife.

-People are able to recognise there are different variations of the same thing eg a child with a cat.

-His work has encouraged people to think more deeply about the world.

What are the weaknesses with the cave analogy?


-The information gained through our senses is not unimportant - we need it to survive.

-Plato does not prove an existence of another realm.

-Saying philosophers should rule is an elitist view.

-Hume argues knowledge comes from experience, our minds are blank slates (tabula rasa) & life experiences fills it.

What is a form?


-A world of perfect, eternal & unchanging objects.

What is a particular?


-Objects in the real world which are imperfect copies of the form.

What is the form of the good?


-The ultimate form.

-The reason why forms are good.

-Enables us to see the forms.

-Ultimate end.

What are plato's arguments for the forms?


-Argues we can recognise similar things without explaining how theyre similar.

-We cannot gain true knowledge from the earth because it's constantly changing.

-We have an ability to recognise the forms that our souls knew before we were born.

-Led to a belief in the afterlife.

-Comforting to know there is another reality that gives true knowledge.

What are arguments against Plato's forms?


-If there are forms for everything, must there be an ideal form of dirt.

-Plato's belief in the unchanging nature of the world of forms seems to say the form of the ipad has always existed & the form of the trex still exists.

-Evolution means we have an empirical means of explaining what animals have in common.

-Study of the forms takes us away from the useful scientific study of the world.

-Cannot be proven to exist.

-Led to a negative view of this world as only giving opinions and not real truth.

How does Aristotle understand reality?

-He uses the empirical method, he analyses the world to understand it.

What are the 4 causes?


-Material cause= What a substance is made from.

-Formal cause= Structure/Form of the finished thing.

-Efficient cause= Who is the maker of the object.

-Final cause= Purpose of the object.

Why do the 4 causes matter?


-Shows world & everything in it has telos.

-Shows the key to knowledge is the empirical method.

-Philosophers have to explain the purpose of the world.

What is Aristotle's prime mover?

-Everything in the world is constantly changing, whereas the prime mover is unchanging.

-it's eternal; beginning to exist or ceasing to exist creates a change, therefore the pm is eternal.

-it's perfect; it has already reached its complete actuality.

-It's impassive; it doesn't experience emotion.

-Aristotle believed all physical substances can change, therefore the pm must be non-physical as it doesn't change.

How does the prime mover relate to the world?

-Causes all the changes that occur.

-Since the pm is perfect & unchanging, it only thinks ab itself.

-The pm's perfection moves other things towards him.

-All things desire the good/perfect, and the process of change is a move in the direction towards the pm.

-The pm is the final cause of all things.

How does Aristotle see the prime mover?

-He sees it as God.

-He sees this pm as a God who created the world but is then separate and uninvolved, so an impassive & unaware of the world God.

What are the arguments for Aristotle's view of causation?

-Everything having a purpose is a logical idea; our senses feel everything has a purpose.

-Comforting to believe there is order & purpose behind everything; Aquinas' NL theory shows everything has a God-Given purpose.

-Aristotle's purpose gives meaning to life; it motivates people & encourages them to use their intellect to discover more ab the world & its purpose.

-4 Causes can easily be applied to things that exist in the world.

-4 Causes focus on the purpose & helps us determine whether something is any good or not.

-This theory is derived from his reflection on the natural world, this is a strength compared to Plato's theory of the forms which isn't observable in this physical world.

What are the arguments against Aristotle's view of causation?

-It is ludicrous to see purpose in everything; we cannot justify murder & rape by saying they have a purpose.

-We cannot discover the purpose of certain things; eg slugs.

-No way of knowing if there is an individual purpose or universal purpose to all things.

-Some argue there is no evidence that this material world is the source of true knowledge, there could be other ways eg divine revelation.

-Russel, Satre & Dawkins claim it makes no sense to talk of a 'purpose' for the universe; it just exists with no reason or goal, it is simply the result of chance.

-Aristotle's efficient cause does not tell us what's happened; only that SOMETHING has happened.

-Just because every part of the human body has a purpose, doesn't mean every person has a purpose.

-Modern anatomy suggests not all parts of the body has a purpose; the appendix had a purpose in the past but not anymore. Nipples on males also serves no purpose.

-The purpose of an object changes with everyone's views; eg a religious textbook being used to balance a wonky table.

-The causes are empirical, however our senses do not always give accurate information.

What are the arguments for the Prime Mover?

-It's more difficult to believe in a God who is perfect but is liable to changing emotions; An impassive pm seems more logical.

-The idea of the pm avoids the problem of evil, because the obvious question of why the pm doesn't prevent evil is avoided. (it cannot think about anything outside of itself).

-Logically explains why things change from potential to actual in the world - we are attracted to a higher perfect power so we must change in relation to it.

-We are naturally drawn to goodness. (PM)

-Influenced the understanding the theistic God as the PM is eternal, perfect.

What are the arguments against the Prime Mover?

-Difficult to understand how a being is perfect but has no knowledge of the world.

-If the pm is pure thought & responsible for everything, where did matter come from?

-The idea of a 'God' who is not involved in the world is unsatisfactory for religious believers. Therefore the pm is not worthy of worship nor is there any point in prayer.

-Fallacy of composition - just because causation exists in the world, doesn’t mean there is a cause behind the world, as Russel argues, just a ‘brute fact’.

The Form of the Good vs the Prime Mover.

-Neither the Good or the PM is directly involved with the world.

-Both are perfect and necessary beings; they're eternal.

-Both are to an extent responsible for the existence for things in the world; The PM explains change, the Good as a form is an attempt to find stability in a world of change.

-The PM has a consciousness; it thinks about thought. Whereas the Good is not conscious, its an idea,

-Both are influential to the Christian idea of God; the PM has been adapted to prove the existence of God; the Good & the idea of the Forms as perfect & unchanging also influenced the idea of God.

What are the similarities of FOG & PM?

-Both describe a perfect being with a necessary existence. They do not depend on anything for existence.

-Both are eternal.

-Both explain why things are the way they are in this world.

-Both concepts indicate absolute goodness - PM perfectly good because badness links to an absence of something, so he must be perfect as he contains everything. The FOG is an illustration of perfect goodness & it doesn't have a mind whereas PM has a mind but can only think of itself.

-Both concepts has influenced the Christian concept of God as both depict an eternal perfect being.

-Equally neither is identical to the Christian God of the bible, as this God is seen as the creator of the world & is immanent with the world. & both FOG and PM are not the creators of the world.

What are the differences of FOG & PM?

-Aristotle believes the only eternal entity is the PM, whereas Plato believes there is an eternal WORLD OF THE FORMS.

-FOG explains the knowledge of goodness that souls possess in the world of the particulars because they had lived in the world of forms & had access to form of goodness. Whereas PM explains the aim or final cause of everything in the universe - to achieve perfection & the PM is the source of perfection & attracts everything to it.

-Plato sees the creator of the world as a different God, whereas Aristotle does not see a need for a creator God because for him the world & the PM are both eternal.

-PM is seen as more believable as Aristotle based it on empirical evidence that causation & change exist in the universe for a reason. Whereas there is no way of verifying the WORLD OF THE FORMS.

-Plato wants to explain why people have an innate sense of knowledge, whereas Aristotle is concerned with why everything changes.