I will attempt to show how and why Melissa would take an Aristotelian approach the dilemma facing her and her sister and what arguments might be employed to make her case. I will also look at the flaws in this approach and how Melinda might respond to the argument using these shortcomings. In order to put forth a convincing argument Melissa will have to lay out the logic behind Aristotle point of view. She will have to walk her sister through his basic view on the categories of things (said of but not in, in but not said of, said of and in, neither said of or in). This will lead into the causes of things (formal, efficient, material, and final). This then allows her to get to the point in which Aristotle’s view on the relationship between the …show more content…
The first being said of but not in, he states in Categoriae Book II that ” some are said of a subject, but are not in a subject” as in cat being used to point out or describe a particular animal (1). Cat would not be a trait of a particular animal but wild, fast, fat etc. would fit into Category 2 or as Aristotle puts it “Some are in a subject but are not said of a subject” (2). Category 3 is made up of things that are said of and also in a subject. The example he give is "knowledge" is in a subject, the soul, yet said of a particular knowledge of grammar”(3) This leads us to Category 4 in which we have unique things such as Melinda, Melissa or the house they grew up in. These are one of a kind things that Aristotle calls primary substances. (4) These concepts are important as they lay the groundwork for Aristotle’s next idea. This being that primary substances all have four causes or “Explanatory Factors”. …show more content…
a cobbler and his shoes, a writer and her book or in the case of a human their parents. (6) The second is the material cause and this would be leather etc. for the cobbler, bound paper for the writer. The third is the formal cause, which is akin to a plan or recipe for putting together a primary substance such as our DNA. This finally brings us to the final cause, which is the end to which the primary substance is heading. Examples of this would be to protect feet in the case of the shoes or as Aristotle sees it happiness should be the end we seek. This being laid out we can now move on to the relationship between the body and soul.
he comes to term with three certainties: the existence of the mind as the thing that thinks,
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses the principles of virtue, choices and a desire for an end. In the 5th chapter of book 3, Aristotle gives a possible argument of someone who objects to his beliefs “But someone might argue as follows: ‘All Men seek what appears good to them, but they have no control over how things appear to them; the end appears different to different men” (1114b). Based on the objector’s generalization, he or she believes that all men strive to find the ultimate good, but they don't have the freedom or the wisdom to see things for what they truly are.
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
Throughout Aristotle’s life and career as a philosopher, he modified and formulated many ideas that deal with the psyche and state of the mind and body. One of the most prevalent ideas that he studied was the quest for happiness. He had many theories about it, but most merged to become the Nicomachean Ethics
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
Next, Aristotle explains that knowledge is in the answers of four questions: whether there is a connection between an attribute and a thing, the reason ...
I intend to show the validity of Plato's arguments about his theory of Forms. Aristotle, along with others, cross-examines Plato's proposals. Yet, I happen to see the potential of his point of view and would like to take a deeper look into his theory. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the theory of Plato's Forms from his perspective and that of several others, including Aristotle.
Socrates claims to be a gadfly, which is a pretty unflattering image. Why does Socrates describe his role in Athens this way? How might it make sense in light of Socrates’ claim that the unexamined life is not worth living?
Many have scrutinized and compared the dissimilarities and similarities of Aristotle's doctrine of categories and Plato's theory of forms. The observations found are of an interesting nature.
What are good decisions, and how do we make them? In regards of Aristotle the process of good decision-making seems is Wish → Deliberation → Decision. One must want a positive result, set up the means in which he/she are willing to take to obtain the result, and then decide to act on those means. Although this process could be interpreted differently because of perspective, a good decision is typically in the eyes of society. In “Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Ross”, Aristotle attempts to clarify his thoughts on this fundamental process of good decisions making and holding to it.
...ence of the cognitive feature of the animal. For Aristotle the body and soul are not two separate elements, but they are of one thing. A body and a soul make a person. If a person has no soul, then that person is dead and it would only be a person by name. A thing that has a soul and is complete must be able to move and change. The soul dies with the body, and without the soul, the person is no more a person, but another inanimate object. One cannot exist without the other. With this concept of one not existing without the other, Aristotle leaves no room for there to be a possibility of immortality. Aristotle’s ideas of the soul and the body really formulate and combine both psychology and biology together, even though today many of his ideas have been proven wrong, for his time, they were very advanced with the research and materials that he was able to come by.
Aristotle’s ontology is much like Plato’s in that it is universal. Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existing, or, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. This concept is what most people used as a way to categorize different people in society. The hierarchy system is how different people are placed based on their family and how their life styles are. Even today the government categorizes p...
¡§It is not Fortune¡¦s power to make a city good; that is a matter of scientific planning and deliberative policy.¡¨ Aristotle, along with most of the prominent thinkers of his time, theorized upon what the Ideal Political State would be and through what means it could be obtained. Aristotle wrote on this discussion of the Ideal State in books VII and VIII of The Politics.