Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Ancient Philosophical Infuences - Coggle Diagram
Ancient Philosophical Infuences
Platos understanding of reality
believed that there was a greater reality beyond the world we experience - a priori reasoning was the key to unlocking this reality
the analogy of the cave
asks us to imagine that a group of prisoners are chained in an underground cave, the have been there since birth and are chained by their neck and ankles, they can only see the shadows projected on the wall by a fire, they believe that the shadows are all that existed
if one day a prisoner were released and were to venture outside the cave, once his sight adjusted he would realise that it was the outside world that was real and that the cave itself was just new knowledge
plato argued that he would not be believed and the other prisoners might even threaten to kill him
features of the story
prisoners = ordinary people in our world
cave = the empirical world
chains = senses that restrict our experiences
shadows = everyday senses experience
escapee = philosophers who are able to access knowledge
difficult ascent = the road to philosophical knowledge is hard
outside world = the world of forms
the sun = form of good
return to cave = philosophers duty to free and educate others
threats = philosophers will be ridiculed for sharing knowledge
written in his book 'the republic'
key messages of the cave
metaphysics - what is real? - this world is not real and that the real world is an unchanging worl do fforms
epistemology - how do we gain knowledge? knowledge is through the mind (a priori) not the senses - the senses only provide opinions and shadows
politics - who should rule? philosophers are the only ones with real knowledge so should rule - democracy puts power into the hands of the majority who lack knowledge
ethics - what is good? philosophers see and understand the good so know what goodness is
assessing platos ideas on the cave
it is not clear why it is important for the philosophers to rule if this is only a shadow world
plato may be right to suggest that our senses are not always reliable however the info we get through our senses is not unimportant we need it to survive
plato doesnt offer proof of the existence of another realm and he is unclear how the two worlds relate to each other
he is guilty of elitism - having two groups of those who know and those who are ignorant is too simplistic
Platos forms
forms = the name plato gives to ideal concepts that exist in reality
particulars = the name plato gives to the objects in the empirical world which are merely imperfect copies of the form
believes in an unchanging truth about every type of object or quality - e.g. in the mathematical world 2+2=4 always yet in our world everything is a process of change
there may be many beautiful things and there is one thing that they have in common - the form of beauty
plato states that these ideas which we recognise but cant easily define do actually exist - they are ideas but are more real than the physical objects - they are invisible and intangible - they are known to the mind
forms and particulars
world of forms
each form is one single thing
known by the intellect or reason
eternal
immmutable (unchanging)
non-physical
perfect
world of particulars
there are many particulars
known through emprical senses
pass in and out of existence
constantly changing
physical
imperfect
form of good
the ultimate form
the perfection o fall forms comes from the form of good
it is the reason why the forms are good
it enables us to 'see' the forms
it is the ultimate end in itself
assessing plato on the forms
FOR
one over many argument - we can recognise that different particulars are the same sort of thing even if we can not explain exactly why - e.g. even a small child can correctly identify that a cat is a cat even if the have never seen the exact one before - we recognise the forms that our souls knew before we were born - allows us to recognise the sameness
ideal standard - forms can be used to support a belief in absolute and unchanging morals - the form is the ideal standard of a property - the form of good gives us an absolute idea of what goodness really is it is not a matter of opinion
AGAINST
Wittgenstein rejected the one over many argument with his family resemblance theory - he suggested that there is no one over many but merely a series of overlapping characteristics
the third man argument - claims to explain reality, if we need the idea of forms to explain what objects have in common the what is to stop us once we have arrived at the form asking what the form and the particulars have in common and thus requiring a third thing to explain this - could proceed infinitely and we would never get an explanation
according to plato everything has an ideal form seems absurd to suggest there is an ideal form of dirt, cancer, etc (Stephen Law argues 'the form of the bogey')
if forms are never changing this raises issues such as does the form of a trex still exist even though its extinct or did the form of an ipad always exist
Aristotle's understanding of reality
aristotle aims to explain the world around him as this world is the real world - he uses empricial methods
the four causes
everything in the world is constantly moving and changing - at birth we are actually a baby but potentially an adult - all things move from potentiality to actuality
material causes - what the thing is made from - e.g. the bronze of a statue
formal cause - this is the structure or from of the finished thing
efficient cause - the primary source of the change - it is the maker of the object e.g. parent of child
final cause - the purpose for which something is done or made - telos e.g. walking about is to be healthy
the four causes illustrate several of his key ideas
this world is the real world and the task of philosophers is to explain it
the key to knowledge is the empirical method
the world and all this is in it has a purpose/telos
Aristotle's prime mover
characteristics
key idea = immutable/unchanging
eternal - beginning to exist or ceasing to exist would both constitute a change
perfect - to be perfect means to have complete actuality - the pm doesnt change so must be perfect already
impassive/doesnt experience emotion - to experience emotion would bring about a change in ones inner state
non-physical and an immaterial substance
pm and world
the pm causes all the changes that occur
the pm cannot be aware of the world as this would produce changes
in order to be perfect and unchanging the pm can only think of itself as it is the only perfect thing
the pm moves other things towards him - things desire the good/perfect and the process of change is a move in the direction of the pm
e.g. analogy of cat drawn to saucer of milk, the milk is unmoved but attracts the cat
it is the final cause of all things
pm and god
pm
immutable, impassive, unaware of world
god
all powerful, all knowing, interacts with and loves the world
both
good (but understood in different ways), eternal, perfect, the first cause
assessing aristotle
on causation
there is an element of common sense in the four causes - most objects conform to the idea
the four causes focus on purpose and this gives us a way of determining whether something is any good or not - we intuitively know that if things dont do the job they were meant to do then they are not really being the object they were meant to be
aristotles claim that everything has a purpose is subjective - purpose may depend on our point of view - e.g. a book is used to balance a wonky table therefore has many purposes
existentialists claim that humans have no purpose - they argue that existence is a matter of chance and that there is no purpose until we freely choose to give ourselves a purpose
based on empirical methods which can be tested via our senses yet we cannot always rely on these as we can be deceived e.g. a pencil in water appears bendy
on the prime mover
it is more difficult to believe in a god who is perfect if that being is liable to changing emotions - an impassive pm seems more logical
the idea of the pm avoids the traditional problem of evil - there is no issue about evil and suffering in the world because the obvious question of why doesnt the pm prevent evil is avoided
it is difficult to understand how a being can be described as perefct yet have no knowledge of the world
if the prime mover is pure thought but is in some way responsible for everything then where did matter come from?
the idea of a god who is not involved is unsatisfactory for religious believers - the pm is not worthy of worship nor would there be any point in prayer
Plato vs Aristotle - reason and experience
use of reason v use of senses
plato favours the use of reason than empirical world - philosophical truths are known a priori without any reliance on senses - plato also believes that there are innate ideas - our souls already contain knowledge of the forms prior to being united to our bodies - the analogy of the cave and theory of the forms can be used to illustrate these ideas
a priori knowledge gives us certainty but it only seems to give certainty with regards to maths and logic - it doesnt bring certainty to things we experience
there are a number of things such as colour that are very difficult to know without experience
(the arguments for and against the forms are also relevant here)
aristotle favours the use of senses over reason - philosophical truths are acquired via the empirical method using our senses - they are a posteriori truths - empiricists do not believe in innate ideas - our mind is a tabula rasa at birth and it is via experience that the mind gradually fills with ideas
a posteriori knowledge is knowledge of the world around us and is thus more useful than a priori knowlede
it seems right to say that we could not have thoughts about most things without senses
the senses can be in error so empirical method offers probability but not certainty
it is hard to understand how we get ideas such as god or morality which do not obviously link to the senses
form or good vs prime mover
neither the good nor prime mover is directly or personally involved in the world
both are perfect and necessary being - eternal
both are to some extent responsible for the existence of things in the world (indirectly) - they are explanations - it is an attempt to find permanence in a world of change
the pm has consciousness - it thinks about thought and its own nature - the good is not conscious it is an idea
both have been influential to the christian idea of god though it may or may not be a helpful influence