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 …show more content…
Our earthly world is full of unevenness, imperfections, and impurities that have been copied from the true ideal world that is truly beyond us. Plato further believed that our physical world and its Forms participate or imitate the real Forms in an extremely disorderly way (Plato versus Aristotle: Theory of Forms and Causes - Filthy Lucre | For The Working Affluent). He claimed that there was a relationship between the realm of Forms and our physical world. This relationship revealed to the Forms mortals and brought order to life. These Forms have four main aspect or concept, which are used to better understand them. The first concept is a more logical perspective, which provides a more “one over many” theory, meaning that we normally generalize everything under certain vague categories, such as the color red. There are many different shades of red, but we do not specifically state what shade we mean. However, we all generally get the same picture in our minds of what the color is. Another viewpoint of the Forms, a more metaphysical aspect, states that the Forms do not change, decay or cease to exist. Plato’s grand metaphysical theory is that there is a world beyond ours that contains all of these unchanging Forms. Today, this theory is shown by how we perceive our “real” world based upon watching television, playing video games, and endless hours on the internet. Females are …show more content…
Whether he meant this would occur after death or during life, he never really explained and it remains a mystery. Plato was a big believer in the fact that the human soul is a nonmaterial entity that can exist apart from the body that existed before birth. He showed this by stating that what we call learning is actually a Form of “recollection”. Plato explains this by saying that the minds ability to recognize and remember the correct steps needed must be present since birth and those innate abilities can “only” come from the human’s soul being knowledgeable of the Form in a past life (Plato versus Aristotle: Theory of Forms and Causes - Filthy Lucre | For The Working Affluent). Aristotle on the other hand believed that everything was right here on earth and one could find the Forms if they developed a scientific method to apprehend it. He believed that our natural world itself is real and physical. After having studied some biological and physical phenomenon during his work as a teacher, Aristotle came to understand that our world is actually made up of many different natural Forms, even though not all of the Forms were ideal, pure or perfect. He argued that with our senses, we could identify all the natural Forms here on Earth. The big question that Aristotle and everyone else asked about Plato’s
Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic. In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by using a personal character.
Aristotle, W. D. Ross, and Lesley Brown. The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Philosophy is a very important part of people’s lives. Philosophy is quite basically asking inquiries about existence, reality and nature of knowledge. To better understand philosophy we must look throughout history. Looking back through history helps better show what the philosophers thought during the time period in which they lived. The relativity of the theories, to the time period, is a very important factor in how efficient these theories they were. The first philosopher’s ideas to people today would be considered either very basic, or insane. Yet, in the time period they lived in, they were considered to be geniuses. Also, looking back through time and studying philosophers and what they believed can help create a better idea for our own philosophical creations. The first philosophers were also known as the Presocratics. They were called this because they were in a time period before Socrates was born. They mainly focused on answering what is the explanation of nature, also referred to as metaphysics. Even before the Presocratic philosophers, we need to look at the ancient Greek poets that created myths and examine how their stories came into being made and how it had an effect on their civilization. These myths are a part of Philosophy because they were the first ideas about creation. The transition between these mythic worldviews and pre-Socratic philosophers’ worldview was important because it lays down the structural work for great philosophers to learn from them and develop further theories based on their findings.
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
"Plato." Literature of the Western World, Volume 1. 5th edition by Brian Wilkie and James Hurt. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2001. 1197-1219.
As students file into the auditorium of the Academy the first thing that we all notice is the two professors that were standing at the front of the room. After all the students were seated that is when the first professor stepped forward to address the class. Plato: Good Morning Students! Students: Good Morning Professor! Plato: Many of you may know who I am and then there are those of you that do not. For those of you that do not know who I am, my name is Plato. I founded this Academy in 387 and it is the first of its kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy). I have studied under many great philosophers. After Plato got done speaking he stepped back and the professor standing to the left of him stepped forward and addressed the class. Aristotle: Good Morning Student! Students: Good Morning Professor! Aristotle: Like Plato there are many of you that know me and there are those of you that do not. So I will introduce myself to those of you that do not know me. My name is Aristotle. I was a
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
The lion is always considered the head of his clan but is it because he is the strongest, the most vibrant, or because his roar is the loudest? What causes this desire to dominate someone else? People want to feel superior because they are convinced that it is human nature to become superior. While Aristotle describes the idea of human nature as consisting of a natural pattern of wanting to dominate other people, often to the point of slavery, Douglass believes in the idea of education leading to people wanting to dominate other people, proving that it is a social force that affects peoples’ nature. Men are looked upon as individuals who dominate everything. White men are the common oppressors of both women and slaves. White women believe themselves to be superior to slaves and as equal as men. These groups believe the reason to their sense of superiority is human nature. But, this is not actually the case; in reality, everyone is equal.
Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.
Plato and Aristotle both established important ideas about politics and their government. The general idea these two men wrote about were tyranny and the rule of law. What the rule of law is stating is that no one is immune from the law, even the people who are in a position of power. The rule of law served as a safeguard against tyranny because laws just ensure that rulers don’t become more corrupt. These two philosophers explored political philosophy and even though they didn’t agree on much they’re impacts are still around the world today.
In my opinion, Socrates’ analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us
Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.