Studied by 0 people
Philosophical views of Plato: - understanding of reality (reliance on reason as opposed to senses) - the Forms (nature, hierarchy) - analogy of the cave (details, purpose, relation to theory of Forms) Philosophical views of Aristotle: - understanding of reality (use of teleology) - four causes - Prime Mover (nature & connections between this & final cause) Discuss: - compare & evaluate Plato's Form of the Good & Aristotle's Prime Mover - compare & evaluate Plato's reliance on reason (rationalism) & Aristotle's use of the senses (empiricism)
rationalism
the school of thought which argues the best way (or only way) to discover truth is through the use of reason (a priori)
e.g. Plato
the school of thought which argues the best way (or only way) to discover truth is through the use of reason (a priori)
rationalism
empiricism
the school of thought which argues the best way (or starting point) to discover truth is through the use of reason (a posteriori)
e.g. Aristotle
the school of thought which argues the best way (or starting point) to discover truth is through the use of reason (a posteriori)
empiricism
innate ideas
belief that humans are born having knowledge of certain things
belief that humans are born having knowledge of certain things
innate ideas
What does Heraclitus say and how does this influence Plato?
‘all things pass and nothing stays’
‘you could not step twice into the same river’
true knowledge is impossible because reality is always in a state of flux
can be problematic when it comes to ethics — e.g. sometimes murdering innocent children would be morally wrong & sometimes not
also cannot be applied to mathematics — sometimes 2+2 would equal 4 but sometimes it would equal something else
Plato argues there must be some ‘things’ that exist that are eternal & unchanging, which we can call ‘true’.
Who says ‘all things pass and nothing stays’ and that ‘you could not step twice into the same river’?
Heraclitus
Plato’s theory of knowledge (the Forms)
Each concept exists independently of its particular representations in the physical world. This existence is eternal & universal.
We cannot know the Forms via their physical representations because these can change/disappear. Therefore, we cannot gain knowledge using our senses by observing representations of Forms in the physical world.
We can only gain true knowledge via our use of reason — a rational understanding of what underlies physical reality (the Forms)
Makes Plato a rationalist — knowledge can only be gained a priori (through reason rather than observation)
ontological dualism
the idea that reality is comprised of two distinct worlds/realms
Plato is an ontological dualist
the idea that reality is comprised of two distinct worlds/realms
ontological dualism
world of the Forms (Plato)
a world of universal truth we can understand via our use of reason
a world of universal truth we can understand via our use of reason (Plato)
world of the Forms
world of appearance (Plato)
the world we experience via our senses which can only provide us with opinion & illusion (rather than truth) because it is constantly changing
the world we experience via our senses which can only provide us with opinion & illusion (rather than truth) because it is constantly changing (Plato)
world of appearance
Forms (Plato)
universal ideas/concepts that are universally true & can be understood via our use of reason
universal ideas/concepts that are universally true & can be understood via our use of reason (Plato)
Forms
The Theory of Forms (Plato)
Two distinct levels of reality exist:
The world of appearance — visible world we inhabit, full of sights, sounds, etc.
The world of Forms — intelligible world that exists outside world of appearance
All physical things have a relevant Form (e.g. we only know what a cat is & how it is different because we have an intellectual grasp of the form of ‘cat’ & the form of ‘dog’).
Abstract concepts such as beauty & justice also have Forms (e.g. we are only ale to identify the beauty in a person or painting because we have a conception of Beauty in the abstract)
the things we see as beautiful are beautiful only because they participate in the more general form of Beauty (invisible, eternal & unchanging, unlike things in the physical world which can grow old & lose their beauty)
Plato’s rationalism
We can never have true knowledge of anything we experience because sense experience is only ever part of the world of appearance, which is constantly changing & therefore imperfect.
Since there is no permanence to this world, we can’t truly know anything about it & are left merely with opinion.
Through contemplation & reason only, we can know the Forms as they exist in the world of the Forms. Since these are unchanging & eternal, we can depend upon our knowledge gained from the world of the Forms.
Plato is a rationalist because he believes certain truths about the universe are knowable by the mind alone (the empiricist denies this). The philosopher can see beyond the world of the senses to the true nature of things.
The relationship between ‘particular things’ & the Forms (Plato)
The particular things of the world of appearance are merely imitations of the one true Form of that thing.
We recognise things for what they are because of our knowledge of the Forms (e.g. we know a tree is a tree even if we have not seen that particular tree before, because we understand the concept ‘tree’ & can see that we have something which imperfectly imitates this concept). (It participates in the Form).
The unchanging nature of the Forms makes them ‘more real’ than the ordinary physical objects we perceive with our senses.
the hierarchy of Forms (Plato)
The world of the Forms is superior in every way to the world of appearance — the particular appearances are a rather pale reflection of their Forms
If something is true in the world of appearance, it is even more true in the world of Forms
In the world of appearance, we need eyes to see objects. In the world of Forms, we need the ‘mind’s eye’/force of intellect to appreciate the Forms.
We also need something equivalent to the sun to illuminate our understanding (the Form of the Good, highest of the Forms)
Justice, Wisdom, Courage etc. are ‘Higher Forms’
more specific forms closely related to material objects (e.g. Blueness or Softness) are lower down
Form of the Good (Plato)
the most real of all Forms — the Form which allows all other Forms to exist & be understood by our reason
all Forms are given their value by the Form of the Good
allows all other Forms to be intellectually perceived & provides structure & hierarchy to the Forms (as the sun illuminates objects in physical world & is cause of existence)
the most real of all Forms — the Form which allows all other Forms to exist & be understood by our reason (Plato)
Form of the Good
What analogy does Plato use to help us understand the Form of the Good?
Just as the sun allows our sense of sight to see things in the world of appearance whilst also structuring the world of appearance (allowing things to exist), the 'Form of the Good’ allows our reason to rationally comprehend all the other Forms whilst also structuring the world of the Forms & allowing the Forms to exist.
Just as all things in the world of appearance participate in the sun, all of the Forms participate in the Form of the Good.
benefits (4) & problems (7) of thinking in terms of a hierarchy of Forms & Form of the Good (Plato)
just as the physical world needs to be ordered in accordance with natural laws, the world of Forms also needs to be organised in order for Forms to be understood & related to each other
Hierarchy of the Forms explains how we can objectively apply abstract concepts such as beauty & justice to particular things (these are not subjective)
explains how we can recognise things as the ‘same’ even if they appear different (One over Many argument)
the Form of the Good is necessary — ultimately, all Forms must depend on something for their existence & their relationship with each other
Christian perspective — it is God which is responsible for our understanding of concepts such as goodness, justice, etc. (but Plato is right that there is a principle)
secular perspective — the Form of the Good is unnecessary & speculative (scientific method is better since we can observe & make theories
abstract concepts such as beauty, justice & goodness are subjective (logical positivists)
it is possible to come to an objective understanding of something without the need for the Form of the Good/Hierarchy of the Forms (e.g. by reason alone, as in Kant’s moral law)
Family Resemblance Argument (Wittgenstein) — we do not need the Forms to recognise similarities
problem of interaction — if the Forms help us to recognise things, we need to be able to explain how the Forms interact with the physical world
Hume — we simply do not know whether anything has necessary existence
Plato’s belief in innate ideas
Plato believes in reincarnation of the soul & that the soul exists in the world of the Forms when disembodied
Since the soul exists in the world of the Forms, we are born with knowledge of the forms but forget these Forms when our soul enters the body
Learning is a process of remembering what we already know but have forgotten (the Forms)
What do these things represent in Plato’s Analogy of the Cave?
the cave
the shadows
the chained prisoners
the escaped prisoner
the difficult ascent of the prisoner
the world outside the cave
the realities outside the cave
the Sun
cave — world of appearance
shadows — our everyday sense experiences of the physical world (represented as shadows because they are illusory & can only lead to opinion rather than truth)
chained prisoners — majority of humanity, trapped by superficial world of desires & emotions. Have no idea they are trapped (as we are ‘trapped’ into thinking the world of appearance is the real world & all that matters)
escaped prisoner — person who has recognised there is a world of truth beyond sensory world & has embarked on philosophical investigation
difficult ascent of the prisoner — the road to truth that philosophical investigation can offer is difficult
world outside the cave — world of the Forms
realities outside the cave — the universal Forms
the Sun — the Form of the Good
metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality
the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality
metaphysics
epistemology
the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge
the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge
epistemology
benefits/advantages of Plato’s ontological dualism
If there were a ‘world’ that contained objective truths this would solve ethical & political problems
If we can discover objective, rational truths, we have access to correct answers to questions such as ‘Is killing innocent people wrong?’ or ‘Is democracy the best form of government?’ or ‘Should all people be treated equally?’
problems/disadvantages of Plato’s ontological dualism
Doesn’t appear to be any evidence of an immaterial world of objective truths existing independently of physical world
Such things as mathematics may provide evidence for this but it is difficult to show there is an objective world containing ethical truths/truths about politics or justice that we can know a priori
The existence of an immaterial world populated by immaterial forms is purely speculation & our best evidence points to the existence of only one world, which we can perceive via our senses
benefits/advantages of Plato’s epistemology (truth can never be the result of empirical observation)
Our empirical observations of the world can be mistaken & are open to interpretation
e.g. two people looking at the same chair might see it as a different colour depending on whether or not they are colourblind
We can never be sure that our observations of the physical world are true
However, there is certainty to the truth of a priori statements e.g. 2+2=4 or all triangles have three sides
Therefore, only reason can provide us with truth
problems/disadvantages of Plato’s epistemology (truth can never be the result of empirical observation)
Empirical observation has provided humans with their best understanding of the world (i.e. the scientific method, resulting in scientific laws)
It is only by being able to empirically perceive the world that we can come to conclusions about the nature of reality & have any knowledge about the world
A posteriori knowledge is the only method of providing truth. Knowledge without evidence is merely speculation
what word does Aristotle use to mean ‘purpose’?
telos
telos (Aristotle)
all things seek to act in accordance with their telos/purpose
linked with Aristotle’s concept of the Final Cause, ultimately the reason for all change
potentiality & actuality (Aristotle)
All things (except Prime Mover) contain the potential to become something else (e.g. matter can change its form)
e.g. a wooden log has the potential to become a wooden chair or a wooden table or a wooden door etc.
What something actually becomes depends on its ‘Final Cause’ (e.g. a wooden log might actually become a wooden door because someone needs a door. The wooden door could in turn potentially become something else.)
This chain of potentiality & actuality (driven by Final Causes) accounts for all change
strengths (5) & problems (5) of Plato’s understanding of reality
Helps us to overcome relativism (view that truth & falsity, right & wrong etc. is product of culture)
Mathematics is similar to the Forms, in that it contains universal, unchanging truths that are independent of our subjective opinion
Explains how we can recognise ‘things’ (although Wittgenstein provides a counterargument)
Attempts to justify the existence of a transcendent reality
Plato’s ideas are a catalyst for new thoughts & social change
There are not ‘two worlds’ (Popper)
Plato cannot provide the necessary evidence for his immaterial world of the Forms, meaning his idea of Forms itself is merely speculation
Problem of interaction
Theory of Forms becomes ridiculous when pushed to its logical conclusion (Law)
Names do not imply existence (Ayer)
How does Plato’s understanding of reality help to overcome relativism? (Brian Davies)
relativism — view that truth/falsity, right/wrong, standards of reasoning etc. are products of culture in which someone is raised
Brian Davies — without Forms we would not be able to discuss, argue, agree or disagree on ‘general features of the real world’ such as beauty, justice or morality because we would have no knowledge/recognition of their essence
Without Forms, the strongest would always be right & you would not be able to debate because there would be no basis for your argument
Which contemporary philosopher argues that without Forms we would not be able to discuss, argue, agree or disagree on ‘general features of the real world’ such as beauty, justice or morality?
Brian Davies
How does the realm of mathematics provide evidence for Plato’s understanding of reality?
Mathematics appears to be independent of any culture
It seems to have universal, unchanging truths which can be understood by everyone
there must be a value of ‘two’ or concept of ‘triangle’ which exist independently of their representations in the physical world
Plato influenced by Pythagoras
(see problem 4 — theory of Forms becomes ridiculous when pushed to its logical conclusion)
How do the Forms explain how we can recognise things? (the ‘One over the Many Argument’)
What is the counterargument? (Wittgenstein)
Plato — we can recognise things because each particular thing participates in the form of that thing
(e.g. we can distinguish cats & dogs because each particular cat participates in the Form of Cat whilst each particular dog participates in the Form of Dog
Problem: Wittgenstein & ‘Family Resemblance Argument’
We are able to recognise similarities simply due to overlapping characteristics, not because of reflections of Forms
e.g. we learn through observation what a ‘cat’ is (usually from parents pointing cat out and saying ‘cat’) & once we have seen enough cats we will be able to recognise them as cats, even if they look different
The concept of ‘cat’ is not innate, as Plato believes, but learnt
Who presents the Family Resemblance Argument as a counter to Plato’s ‘One over the Many Argument’?
Wittgenstein
How does Plato’s understanding of reality attempt to justify the existence of a transcendent reality?
The World of Forms is transcendent, outside of space and time, and this is similar to the transcendent realm in which monotheistic Gods exist
How are Plato’s ideas a catalyst for new thoughts & social change?
idea of Forms can help us not to accept things at face value
helps us look beyond the world we experience/are expected to accept due to our culture or upbringing
having an ideal to strive for that is not evident within the world of experience has been the catalyst for much social change
How does Karl Popper criticise Plato’s ontological dualism?
Plato is determined to find a certainty that cannot be found — he cannot find certainty in this world of continual change so assumes it must exist somewhere else
many people run from the difficulties of an uncertain world & this could be why some people are drawn to the certainties of political & religious fundamentalism
however, the mathematical & scientific laws of nature (which are immaterial) could be the sort of knowledge Plato is searching for (eternal, unchangeable, graspable by human reason)
Who criticises Plato’s ontological dualism by saying he is determined to find a certainty that cannot be found but that laws of nature may be the knowledge he was looking for?
Karl Popper
the problem of interaction as a criticism of Plato
with any type of dualism, as well as positing two types of existence you also need a third argument to explain how these two things interact
Plato does not provide much evidence for how the Forms ‘cause’ or allow the existence of things
we are left wondering whether there is a need to posit a world of the Forms at all
How does Stephen Law criticise Plato’s ideas?
Possible counterargument?
the theory of Forms becomes ridiculous when pushed to its logical conclusion
it seems ridiculous that there is a universal unchanging form of fluff or excrement
for Plato, if there weren’t ideal forms of these things we wouldn’t be able to distinguish them from other things
if one part of Plato’s theory of Forms is ridiculous then surely it must all be ridiculous
Plato’s thinking concentrated on Forms of qualities such as beauty & justice, & it could be argued that there may be ideal types of these qualities
no reason why we should push the theory to such extremes — Plato himself was ambiguous about whether there is a form for literally everything
Law may have set up a Straw Man Argument
Although the problem remains as to where we place the dividing line between which things do and do not have Forms (Law could still be correct)
How does A.J. Ayer criticise Plato’s ideas?
Problem with Ayer’s ideas?
Plato assumes that because we have a name for something such as ‘justice’ or ‘beauty’ there must be something that exists that corresponds to that term — names do not imply existence
Ayer calls this ‘superstitious nonsense’. Terms such as ‘beauty’ & ‘justice’ are not names of particular things but stand for qualities of particular things
When I say ‘The Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting’, I am not comparing the Mona Lisa with an eternal unchanging ‘Form’ of beauty but saying I find it pleasing to the eye & enjoy looking at it — the word ‘beautiful’ is shorthand for what I feel when I experience the Mona Lisa
This could mean all statements which express a value are subjective & all questions about such things as beauty, justice & morality really are relative
Aristotle’s empiricism
we are taught such things as mathematics & learn skills in music or athletics through practice
knowledge is based upon careful observations & reflection on what we have seen. We learn from the outside world & our knowledge is not innate
knowledge can also be gained in more than one way — practise, theoretical knowledge etc.
Aristotle accepts Heraclitus's ideas but believes we must find a method of gaining true knowledge in this world
Aristotle’s own evidence for: he observed a lunar eclipse &, beginning with his observation, reflected on what might cause it — his method could be more useful
concluded that the shape could only be made by a spherical object so demonstrated that the earth was a sphere (would not have been possible using Plato’s method)
one of first thinkers to adopt early understanding of importance of the scientific method
idea that all things (except Prime Mover) contain the potential to become something else (Aristotle)
potentiality & actuality
the ‘four causes’ (aetions) as the explanation of all that exists (Aristotle)
influenced by Heraclitus’s idea but believes we must try to understand this world, as there is only one world (ontological monist)
‘aetion’ is usually translated as ‘cause’ but ‘aetion’ can include the concept of explanation as well as origin
Aristotle recognised that something can have several different explanations for its existence, on different levels
Four Causes: Material Cause (Aristotle)
the substance from which a thing is made/created
all substance has the potential to change
Which Cause tells us what material the thing is made from? (Aristotle)
Material Cause
Four Causes: Formal Cause (Aristotle)
tells us what characteristics the thing has
Which Cause tells us what attributes the thing has? (Aristotle)
Formal Cause
Four Causes: Efficient Cause (Aristotle)
tells us what process the thing is created by
Which Cause tells us what process the thing is created by? (Aristotle)
Efficient Cause
Aristotle’s Four Causes
Material — what is it made of?
Formal — what characteristics does it possess?
Efficient — what process brought it into existence?
Final — what is its purpose?
What quote from Aristotle is useful when discussing causation?
“We have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause.”
Four Causes: Final Cause (Aristotle)
tells us the reason for the thing’s existence — its purpose
the reason for the change — without final causes, no change would ever take place
Which Cause tells us the reason for the thing’s existence? (Aristotle)
Final Cause
What do the Material & Formal Causes give us information about? (Aristotle)
what a thing is
What do the Efficient & Final Causes give us information about? (Aristotle)
why a thing is/why a thing exists
teleology
the explanation of things in terms of the purpose they serve
the explanation of things in terms of the purpose they serve
teleology
How is Aristotle’s understanding of reality teleological?
he believes all change is dependent on the existence of a final cause (purpose)
e.g. a desk would not exist if it did not have a final cause (it did not fulfil a purpose)
Aristotle also believes everything in nature exists only because of a Final Cause/purpose
e.g. the purpose of acorns is to become oak trees — an acorn’s telos is to become an actual oak tree. A ‘good’ acorn will perform its telos well & a bad one will not achieve it
the final cause of things in nature is intrinsic — without everything having an internal teleological principle, the world would be much more chaotic (all things would happen by chance)
since there is a large amount of order & stability in the world we can be assured a teleological principle must operate in nature
since all parts of a human being have a purpose, we can imply the human as a whole also has a purpose (to use our reason)
because everything in the universe has a purpose, the universe as a whole must also have a purpose/final cause
Prime Mover (Aristotle)
name Aristotle gives to the Final Cause of the universe
As the universe is a thing that changes, it must have a Final Cause which is the reason for that change
the Prime Mover is the necessary first source of movement which is itself unmoved (he calls the Prime Mover ‘God’)
God & the world are co-eternal (have both existed eternally) so the universe did not have a beginning that was caused by the Prime Mover
Aristotle’s God is not aware of the physical world so prayer has no purpose
since the only thing worthy of contemplation by a perfect being is a perfect being, God only knows itself — is not affected by us
the Prime Mover attracts things like a magnet — the things are affected but not the Prime Mover itself
What name does Aristotle give to the Final Cause of the universe?
the Prime Mover
characteristics of the Prime Mover
perfect
if it were not perfect it could potentially change & we would need another ‘Final Cause’ (explanation) to explain this change — the Prime Mover would not be the Prime Mover
pure ‘actuality’
has no potential to become anything other than what it is
if it had potential to change, we would need another Final Cause to explain this change
eternal
if it had a beginning, we would need to explain its existence by another Final Cause — the Prime Mover would not be the Prime Mover
Prime Mover also cannot come to an end for the same reason
good
perfect things must be good because there can be no defect in something with perfect existence
‘badness’ is connected with lack — a not-being of something which ought to exist
the Prime Mover would have to change in order to become good & the cause of this would need its own explanation
immaterial
matter can be acted upon — has potential to change
also cannot perform any kind of physical, bodily action because it is immaterial
its activity is purely intellectual — the thought of its own perfection
impersonal
since it can only contemplate its own perfection, the Prime Mover has no understanding/knowledge of the existence of the physical universe
therefore does not listen to prayers, perform miracles, condemn people to Hell, become incarnate etc.
a deistic God rather than theistic
exists ‘necessarily’
does not depend upon anything else for its existence — the ultimate Final Cause which explains the change of all other things
the Prime Mover must exist because it cannot not exist
How does Aristotle believe we learn?
from our experiences rather than innate ideas
by direct observation of things or by learning from others
strengths (1) & weaknesses (3) of Aristotle’s metaphysics (understanding of reality)
Overcomes the problems associated with ontological dualism (although still leads Aristotle to believe in an eternal, unchanging, timeless being)
Only minds have purposes
The universe does not have a purpose
Teleology (one of Aristotle’s main ideas concerning nature of reality) is not true/not part of reality
How does Aristotle’s understanding of reality overcome the problems associated with ontological dualism?
Is there still an issue?
his argument begins with empirical evidence, suggesting a thing’s form is immanent & can be learnt via sense experience rather than being from a transcendent, non-physical realm for which there is little evidence
shows how knowledge can be gained without having to assume the existence of an immaterial world of the Forms
we don’t have to try to ‘prove’ the existence of another transcendent realm of existence — problem of interaction no longer an issue
Aristotle appears committed to ontological monism but his arguments lead him to the existence of an eternal, unchanging, timeless being (the Prime Mover) which appears transcendent of this world
may lend weight to Plato — a full explanation of reality can only be reached if there is some kind of transcendent reality beyond this physical world
What are the problems with Aristotle’s notion of purpose?
The word ‘purpose’ usually describes a mental intention (identifying a future state of affairs one wishes to achieve)
it is very difficult to understand how inanimate objects can have purposes
Aristotle has been criticised for assuming there are purposes in nature & the universe as a whole has a purpose
there is a lot of empty space in the universe which serves no purpose
evolution suggests random generation, growth & destruction of species
many scientists have described evolution as ‘blind’ — it happens without intending what it produces
Therefore, teleology is not true/not part of reality
our scientific understanding of reality tells us nature does not act in accordance with purpose but with deterministic scientific processes
problems with Aristotle’s Prime Mover as an aspect of reality (2)
Big Bang theory & modern cosmology would cast doubt upon idea that the universe has existed eternally
our best empirical observations show the universe did have a beginning point & that the motion & change in the universe is a consequence of the expansion & cooling of the universe since the Big Bang
Aristotle’s assertion that the Prime Mover draws the rest of the universe to it, creating change is incorrect
religious criticism — Aristotle’s God doesn’t know the universe exists & does not interact with it or care about it
for monotheistic religions, God created the world & also cares about and interacts with it
the Jewish, Islamic & Christian Gods are also personal in that they can interact with people (& we can interact with them through prayer)
Aristotle’s Prime Mover is more akin to the conclusion of a philosophical argument than a God worthy of worship
strengths (3) & weaknesses (2) of Aristotle’s epistemology (theory of knowledge)
strengths
Aristotle’s methods have been continued by the scientific method
Understanding that we learn our concepts of things from experience is more acceptable (although makes them relative)
It is accessible — observation is the starting point
The Fallacy of Composition — the universe does not necessarily have a cause since what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole
the Four Causes are too simplistic to give a total explanation of all concepts
relationship between Aristotle’s methods & the scientific method
his approach has been adopted as the basic empirical approach to science
scientific method — by analysing the causes of things we can learn what things are & why they behave the way they do
Aristotle’s method of understanding reality is much more practical & useful than Plato’s — we can use our observations of the world to come to conclusions about why the world is the way it is
scientific theories e.g. evolution were first proposed based on empirical observation
How is Aristotle’s understanding that we learn our concepts of things from experience more acceptable?
Potential problem?
Aristotle’s belief that we learn the ‘Form’/characteristics of a thing through observation appears much more of a common-sense approach
e.g. we observe a number of cats which share a set of characteristics (Wittgenstein’s Family Resemblance argument) & learn these are ‘cats’, then develop a concept of what a cat is over continued experience, rather than having an innate concept of what a cat is & recognising cats as merely shadows of the true form of ‘Cat’
This means concepts such as ‘goodness’ are relative to our experiences
How is Aristotle’s theory of knowledge more accessible than Plato’s?
observation is the starting point — accessible to all
Plato’s rational view of existence is restricted to ‘philosopher kings’ & true knowledge is only available to a select few whilst others have to have ‘faith’ that what they are told if true
Aristotle’s views give everyone the possibility of gaining knowledge
The Fallacy of Composition (criticism of Aristotle’s epistemology)
assumption that what is true of the part is true of the whole
e.g. everyone in the class has a mother but this does not mean the class as a whole has a mother
even if every part of the human body did have a purpose, it would not follow that the person as a whole had a purpose
even if it were true that everything in the universe had a purpose (debatable), it would not follow that the universe as a whole has a purpose
if Aristotle is committing the fallacy of composition, we do not need a final cause of the universe so the Prime Mover is redundant
How can it be argued that the Four Causes do not give a total explanation?
the Four Causes give a total explanation of all objects, but this concept is too simplistic to cover the existence of all things
e.g. may be able to explain why a particular person exists but cannot explain what makes that person who they are — their own identity made up of biological, psychological & environmental factors
also cannot explain the existence of emotions
difficult to identify the material cause of love or formal cause of beauty
subjective
comparing Plato’s rationalism with Aristotle’s empiricism (4)
Aristotle — no empirical evidence of a transcendent realm so we should rely on our senses to find out more about reality
Plato — our senses of justice & beauty seem innate, we seem to know if something is just before we learn it from the world around us. So knowledge is gained through reason
Aristotle — we can only use reason after we have experienced & observed things in the world
Plato — reason & the forms explain how we recognise things (makes more sense of reality & what we experience)
Aristotle — if there is one absolute Form of the Good, why do we disagree over right & wrong? It is better to rely on observations
Plato — the senses deceive us so we all have different opinions about what is good. If we escape our senses, we can understand the true Form of the Good
Aristotle — learning appears more difficult than simply remembering. Empiricism gives a better understanding of reality because we learn from experiences & our senses
Plato — we cannot rely on senses & observation to gain knowledge because we are deceived by them. Reason is more reliable & makes more sense of reality in the end
comparing Aristotle’s Prime Mover & Plato’s Form of the Good
Prime Mover — explains why there is change in the world (because everything is being drawn towards perfection of the Prime Mover)
Form of the Good — also explains why there is change (things in world of appearance change & decay but participate on the perfect & eternal world o the Forms & form of the Good)
Prime Mover — based on sense experience & the final cause
Form of the Good — not part of the material world, better to use reason to work out the truth
Prime Mover — clearer explanation of its relationship with the world (cannot interact with the world since it is pure actuality & can only contemplate itself otherwise it would change)
Form of the Good — explains why we recognise goodness in lots of different things & why things vary in the amount of goodness
neither are interested in moral affairs of humanity
Form of the Good is not a ‘being’ with a mind & does not have any kind of activity but Prime Mover draws things towards itself
Problems with both — Aristotle moves from empiricism to rationalism & neither can be empirically verified
Both believe that ultimately, reality needs to be understood in terms of something transcendent — may be same ‘being’ understood from different perspectives
Note
Flashcard