ancient philo influences essay plans Flashcards
(7 cards)
‘the simile of the cave tells us nothing about reality’ discuss. (three paragraphs)
introduction:
- the cave is an analogy which explains the difference between the realm of appearances vs forms.
- the cave tells us that our physical reality is not the true reality, it is a reflection or shadow of the true reality.
- plato would argue that this tells us about his theory of the realm of the forms. aristotle would argue that the theory tells us nothing about reality, as the realm of the forms does not exist.
- the cave does not tell us about reality, as the realm of forms and appearances do not exist, our physical reality is the real reality.
paragraph one:
- plato believes the cave is a representation for the realms of forms and appearances.
- shows how physical objects deceive humans and we should look to discover what the real objects are (the forms).
- shows the deception of the 5 senses - descartes says the senses are deceiving.
- aristotle describes the forms as ‘wholly irrelevant’ as we can explain the world without them. our 5 senses are important and help us to understand the world around us, they do not deceive us.
- therefore plato’s simile of the cave does not tell us about reality because we can trust out senses to understand reality, we do not need to rely on the forms.
paragraph two:
- aristotle argues that we can gain knowledge from our experiences, and we could still learn from the shadows in the cave.
- plato disregards the value of empirical evidence itself, as a rationalist. empiricists would argue that an analogy does not help us explain reality, we should look at what is around us to explain the world.
- the simile of the cave does not tell us anything about reality, as the real explanations of reality can be found in the world around us.
paragraph three:
- plato uses the cave to explain the role of the philosopher. the freed prisoner represents the philosopher who breaks free from indoctrination in society.
- “it is the task of the enlightened not only to ascend to learning and to see the good but to be willing to descend again to those prisoners and to share their troubles and their honours”
- nietzsche calls this a ‘dangerous error’ as it justifies the emotional prejudices of philosophers. plato invented the cave to overexaggerate the role of philosophers because he wanted to rule.
- the simile of the cave tells us nothing about reality because it is biased and used to justify emotional prejudices.
conclusion:
- overall i believe the simile of the cave tells us nothing about reality because…
there is no empirical evidence for the forms & the analogy is biased to philosophers.
to what extent can it be argued that education is about remembering, not learning?
introduction:
- plato argues that we are all born knowing the forms, however we have forgotten them. therefore education is relearning and remembering what we once knew.
- this poses the question whether we are born with a priori knowledge or if we learn it through a posteriori knowledge.
- plato believed that humans were always remembering and could never be taught anything. aristotle argues that knowledge is acquired over time through education and experiences.
- i believe that education is not remembering, it is learning as people are not born with fundamental concepts of right and wrong.
paragraph one:
- plato argues that all people are born with knowledge of fundamental concepts. for example, socrates drew geometrical shapes in the sand as an uneducated child. this shows he knew these concepts without being taught them.
- plato believes that education is a process of anamnesis where concepts are remembered.
- however, aristotle argues that we do not innately know these concepts, we are taught them (posteriori)
- i believe that education is learning, as if it was remembering, everyone would be able to do difficult mathematical concepts like geometry. however, we cannot because we need to be taught this.
paragraph two:
- hume respons to plato’s argument of recollection saying that humans convince themselves that they know concepts like justics and beauty. however, they are subjective, so they cannot be known.
- this shows that humans cannot fundamentally know concepts because they are subjectie, there is no way to say we can know and remember such a complex topic.
- plato would argue that maths is not sujective, however, perfection is subjective. humans create the idea of perfection in their heads; therefore we never know if we know something perfectly, as we only know our version of perfection.
- therefore, education cannot be remembering, it is exposing us to different ideas of perfection which forms our own.
paragraph three:
- plato argues that all of our knowledge is a priori, we cannot learn from our experiences because our senses can deceive us.
- however, from observing what is around us, we learn concepts like maths. for example, looking at circles helps explain to us what a circle is.
- this brief education happens early in life and can be confused with innate knowledge of these concepts. however, it comes from observing hat is arous us.
- i believe this shows that education s learning from our surroundings, not rembering.
conculsion:
- education is learning, not remebering because…
we learn from our surroundings very early in life which influences our knowledge, our knowledge of what is perfection is subjective (we need to learn to shape this knowledge)…
how convincing is plato’s idea of the form of the good?
‘aristotle’s theory of the four causes explains nothing’ discuss. (three paragraphs)
introduction:
- aristotle’s four causes are an attempt at explaining a scientific curiosity (as david hume points out), while they may not be fully correct, they are a suggestion at an explanation
paragraph one:
- aristotle, as an empiricist, uses careful observation of his surroundings to form his theories
- his theory of the four causes is based off our world and we can see examples of this eg. material cause
- plato points out that there are no material causes for concepts like beauty or goodness
- aristotle’s four causes explain the physical world around us but not the spiritual world. (empiricism vs. rationalism)
paragraph two:
- modern developments show that not everything has a purpose (final cause)
- this is the fallacy of composition; it is the assumption that what is true of the part is true of the whole
- eg. appendix has no purpose
- therefore the final cause explains nothing (not everything has a purpose/telos) however, we have to remember aristotle’s limitations - lack of science, anatomy etc
paragraph three:
- aristotle’s four causes attempt to explain complex scientific curioisities
- aristotle wanted to understand ‘motus’ and the exact moment where a cause turned into an effect
- this has never been answered, so arisotle provides many examples (material, formal, efficent & final) to answer this question
- while some are harder to understand eg. efficient cause does not tell us what has happenes only that something has, some are easier eg. material and efficient
- because there is still no answer to what is a cause, we can look at positives of aristotle’s theories and not take them for granted (he was progressive for his time)
conclusion:
- aristole’s four causes have limitations due to his time however some are still relevant today
- we have to take his theory into account as a suggestion of the answer to a complex scientific curiosity
to what extent has modern cosmology made aristotle’s views on the universe redundant? (three paragraphs)
introduction:
- aristotle’s views on the universe were limited by his time, which we must take into account
- however, modern cosmology has proven some of aristotle’s theories wrong while some remain undiscovered
paragraph one:
- aristotle believed that the universe is purposive and, like everything, it has a telos
- however, processes like evolution are proven to have no purpose
- this is the fallacy of composition; assuming what is true of the part is true of the whole. just because things in the universe have a purpose, the universe itself does not have a purpose
- however, religions like christianity would agree that the universe has a divine purpose which humans do not understand because it was created by god eg. the problem of evil
- therefore the idea that the universe is purposive is not redundant it is just debateable
paragraph two:
- aristotle used one of the first ever methods of categorisation when looking at the world around him; et genus et differentia
- this is similar to modern biology, while it may not be wholly accurate.
- aristotle, as an empiricist, looked at the world around him and used his observations to categorise things
- these attempts are similar to modern methods, therefore his views are not redundant
paragraph three:
- aristotle’s theory of the four causes does not explain some things in the universe
- the universe does not have a material cause (that we know of)
- while it may be a suggestion, it does not help to explain the cause of something like the universe
- however, because we are yet to discover or explain the cause of a universe even with modern cosmology, we cannot discount aristotle’s theories as a suggestion
conclusion:
- some of aristotle’s theories have been disproved by modern cosmology which makes them redundant
- however, despite being limited by his time, aristotle has made some valid suggestions to the answers of complex scientific curiosities which we have yet to answer today - we have to take his suggestions into account
‘aristotle’s prime mover is an unconvincing construction to fill a hole in his theory’ discuss.
‘aristotle’s understanding of the world is more convincing than that of plato’ discuss.
