Plato and Aristotle- A02 and Essay Plans Flashcards
Strengths of the analogy of the cave
- explains why people often feel dissatisfied with this life and why they recognise virtues or qualities such as beauty or goodness.
- Plato gives a reason for the imperfections of the world which we see all around us, admits the world is imperfect copies of this world
- he notes that emipircal knowledge can be flawed (prisoners thinking shadows are real.)
Criticisms of the analogy of the cave
-no tangible evidence for the world of forms
-Karl Popper:believed that plato sought some permanence in the WoF as a way of dealing with the uncertainty of life.
it is possible the forms could just be an idea in the mind.
-the existence of a realm of forms may not be an obvious conclusion of logical reasoning. As it is not really logical at first instance to say there us a world we cannot see
-The forms have no real practical use. They cannot be applied in the physical world how can there be one form of goodness.
Plato’s theory of forms is convincing
-Iris Murdoch defends a form of the Good, hard to attain, all but impossible to represent, which nevertheless unifies the moral world
“beyond the details of craft and criticism there is only the only magnetic non-representable idea of the good which remains not empty so much as mysterious”
-The theory suggests that we survive death. Immortality of the soul is supported by most religions
- It encourages us to question in order to learn an not accept things at face value. This gives a purpose to subjects that require thinking, like philosophy.
-Rationalist a priori approach to understanding of the world around us and making sense of the change that affects everything in the universe-not reliant in misleading sense experiences.
-Helps us to understand the reasons for imperfections in the world.
-It is focused on supreme good and the virtue of human beings and points to which virtues should cultivate, and how we should do this.
Plato’s theory of forms is not convincing
- The form of the good is subjective, different perceptions of goodness (e.g. ethical acts)
- Is there a perfect form of everything only could suggest there is a form bad things (e.g. cancer,disease and jealousy) This would undermine the idea of the world of forms being a perfect realm
- Are there forms of everything (e.g. a pencil sharpener, a strand of hair.) quite ambiguous.
The theory of the prime mover is coherent
-based on empirical evidence. The idea of a material, efficient and formal cause of objects is very understandable. Particularly in a scientific age
-There needs to be some explanation for our existence. Based on logic and common sense - all we know is cause and effect. Surely, science is built on learning from the world around us. This is what Aristotle’s theory does.
-Accounts for our existence whilst at the same time explaining the problem of evil and suffering.
-Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover is based on his studies of the natural world so many could agree that the are reliable including scientists
-
The theory of the prime mover is incoherent
- Aristotles belief that the universe must have a telos has been criticised by many (Russell, Dawkins, Satre) on the basis that it makes no sense
-His theory of the PM is often criticised by theists for it’s portrayal of God as an unloving, uncaring accidental creator
-The causal relationship between the prime mover and the universe is not exactly clear- How does something that is immaterial act on something that is material? where did matter come from?
Many argue that the prime move is irrelevant because it has no interaction with the universe or human beings.
Similarities with Aristotle and Plato
-Both the ideas of the Form of the Good and Aristotle’s PM have profoundly influenced Christian understandings of God. (God as a perfect source of Goodness (plato))
Aristotle’s PM gives Christianity and understanding of God who is the ultimate cause of everything but is not caused himself
-Both attempt to explain why anything exists at all. hierarchy, illuminating all other things; physical things which are just imitations of the Forms nothing would exist. The Prime Mover too is seen as the primary cause of existence, the reason for motion and the first cause .
-Both the form of the good and the prime mover like the God of Chrisitianity have an independent ‘neccesary existence’
-Also unlike the God of Christianity, neither the form of hte Good nor the PM take an interest in moral affairs of humanity.
Differences with Aristotle and Plato
- FOTG is not a being, the PM is a being.
- FOTG- human have the possibility to encounter. PM can gain no further knowledge of especially after death.
- Plato has a dualist understanding of the universe, Aristotle based his idea of sense observation.
- Plato believes the world can never truly yield truth and that truth can only come from the world of forms. Aristotle on the other hand believed that the forms exists as the structure of the world we inhibit
- Plato and the FotG=ambigous, Aristotle and the PM =clear
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is convincing/ yes it explains things
- It is based on empirical evidence
- The idea of a material, efficient and formal cause for objects is very understandable. Particularly in a scientific age
- Aristotle avoids many of the problems with Plato’s theory because he relies on the information his senses give him
- They can be applied to things which already exist, the material cause can be tested and confirmed i.e the chair is made from wood
- The fact that there are anomalies do not disprove this argument. There is no evidence that it is not true and that there are possible compatibilities between his theories and the idea of God or the Big Bang, so it does not have much opposition
- based on logic and common sense, inspired aquinas and Boethius.
- With the idea of a telos, allows for a purposeful life to be found through Aristotle’s philosophy- it remains aspirational while being grounded in reality.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes explains nothing/it is not convincing
- It is possible that the universe has no purpose/telos. ( Russell - ‘the universe just is and thats all there is to it’) - evidence of imperfections in the world
- Russell argued that the universe simply exists and does not have any overall purpose
- Dawkins- there is no ultimate cause to our existence. Evolution more probable explanation
- Infinite regression- just because it is hard to imagine an infinite number of causes does not make it a reason to reject it- it is equally lard to imagine an infinite God.
- hume is/ought
- Existentialists such as Kierkegaard would question whether there is one, set telos for humans, and would suggest that instead it is up to each human to determine the reason for their own existence.
Strengths of the Prime Mover
- Based on empirical evidence. The idea of a material, efficient and formal cause for objects is very understandable. Particularly in a scientific age
- There needs to be some kind of explanation for our existence. Based on logic and common sense- all we know is cause and effect. Surely science is built on learning from the world around us. This is what Aristotle’s theory does.
- It accounts for our existence whilst at the same time explaining the problem of evil and suffering
- The idea that the universe is eternal, though made up of contingent matter, plays a big part in many modern day scientific theories of the universe, this suggests that Aristotle’s view of the universe and the PM are supported to this day.
Weaknesses of the Prime Mover
- Aristotle’s belief that the universe must have had a telos has been criticised by many (Russell, Sartre, Dawkins)
on the basis that it makes no sense.
-His theory of the PM is often criticised by theists for its portrayal of God as an unloving, uncaring accidental creator
-The causal relationship between the Prime Mover and the universe is not exactly clear- it means no interaction, no prayer, no religous experience etc. How does something that is immaterial act on something material? Where did matter come from?
-Many argue that the prime mover is irrelevant because it has no interaction with the universe or human beings
-As the PM never interacts with the world, never thinks of it and cannot be seen, there is no reason to think that it exists at all if it has no impact on the world what is the point of attempting to comprehend it.
Objections of Plato by Aristotle
-There cannot be a universal good, as there are many kinds of good based upon the situation in which it is used- if there was a universal good it would not be so ambiguous and situational/
-Knowing the idea form of the world has no bearing on it’s application in this world. If everything in the world is imperfect, and can never be perfect, then what is the point in attempting to apply the perfect forms to our world as the outcome will always be flawed.
-Plato advocates the forms as the perfect understanding of a certain concept in it’s entirety, however, this is not specific enough to be of any use in the real world. Understanding the true form of “health” will not help you to know what is healthy for an 80 year old as distinct from an 8 year old, as health is relative to the other person.
-
Other objections of Plato
- Empiricists such as Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell would contest that it is ridiculous to make any metaphysical claims about another world more real, or beyond that of our own as there is no way t rest or verify it’s existence. and although Plato’s forms are unfalsifiable this is not good enough justification for believing in a transcendent world.
- AJ Ayer argues that there is no one FOTG.- our understanding of good or bas is simply an emotional reaction to a situation we are presented with. for goodness to exist, there must be a situation we can refer it to.
