Aristoleian vs platonic philosophy of epistomology
Compare and contrast plato and aristotle philosophy
They include such theorems as: i no deduction contains two negative premises; ii a deduction with a negative conclusion must have a negative premise; iii a deduction with a universal conclusion requires two universal premises; and iv a deduction with a negative conclusion requires exactly one negative premise. One might in the face of a successful challenge to Platonic univocity assume that, for instance, the various cases of goodness have nothing in common across all cases, so that good things form at best a motley kind, of the sort championed by Wittgensteineans enamored of the metaphor of family resemblances: all good things belong to a kind only in the limited sense that they manifest a tapestry of partially overlapping properties, as every member of a single family is unmistakably a member of that family even though there is no one physical attribute shared by all of those family members. So, says Aristotle: We think we understand a thing without qualification, and not in the sophistic, accidental way, whenever we think we know the cause in virtue of which something is—that it is the cause of that very thing—and also know that this cannot be otherwise. Socrates was also seen as a great philosopher and, as his pupil, Plato was greatly influenced by his teachings. For Plato, Forms are abstract objects , existing completely outside space and time. It is useful for philosophical sorts of sciences because when we are able to run through the puzzles on both sides of an issue we more readily perceive what is true and what is false. But if it is not possible to know the primary things, then neither can we know without qualification or in any proper way the things derived from them. Aristotle stated that knowing what was right was not enough, that one had to choose to act in the proper manner—in essence, to create the habit of doing good. As Aristotle sets them out, these problems take the form of puzzles, or aporiai, regarding whether and if so how time exists Phys. By giving an example of an artist, Aristotle explains how ideas in the mind of an artist become a work of art in the physical world- his classical example, the piece of marble, which becomes a sculpture through the work of the artist. Every form, because it possessed some actual determination of matter, was also called act. Although Socrates does not offer his own definitions, claiming to be ignorant, he suggests that virtue is a kind of knowledge, and that virtuous action or the desire to act virtuously follows necessarily from having such knowledge—a view held by the historical Socrates, according to Aristotle. All Bs are Cs.
This encompasses his view that knowledge need not be of an unchanging nature, but can be gained by observing the world around us. Despite his criticisms though, Aristotle was influenced by Plato, making their works, which target the same aspects of philosophy, easily comparable.
Endoxa play a special role in Aristotelian philosophy in part because they form a significant sub-class of phainomena EN b3—8 : because they are the privileged opinions we find ourselves unreflectively endorsing and reaffirming after some reflection, they themselves come to qualify as appearances to be preserved where possible.
Aristotle took full charge of Alexander's education and is considered to be the source of Alexander's push to conquer Eastern empires. Although the matter is disputed, his recognition of this science evidently turns crucially on his commitment to the core-dependent homonymy of being itself. Importantly, just as Aristotle sees a positive as well as a negative role for dialectic in philosophy, so he envisages in addition to its destructive applications a philosophically constructive role for homonymy.
By this he means that they should reveal the genuine, mind-independent natures of things.
Plato vs aristotle theory of knowledge
What is a church? As described in that work, the just or completely virtuous person is the one whose soul is in harmony, because each of its three parts—Reason, Spirit, and Appetite—desires what is good and proper for it and acts within proper limits. Of course, the last three items on this list are rather awkward locutions, but this is because they strive to make explicit that we can speak of dependent beings as existing if we wish to do so—but only because of their dependence upon the core instance of being, namely substance. To the Aristotelian method, the obvious solution is to walk out of the cave and experience what is casting light and shadows directly, rather than relying solely on indirect or internal experiences. Induction gives you the basic general laws; deduction uses these laws to explain and understand particular instances. And of course, it continues on, the process. His most important works, copied hundreds of times by hand throughout ancient and medieval times, were titled: Physics ; De Anima On the Soul ; Metaphysics ; Politics ; and Poetics. What remains of Aristotle's works are primarily lecture notes and teaching aids, draft-level material that lacks the polish of "finished" publications. There is no life prior to this one. Both Aristotle and Plato believed thoughts were superior to the senses. Now, at one point in his defense of the senses, Aristotle was the first influential philosopher to say in regard to illusions that we must make a distinction between what the senses contribute and the interpretations supplied by the mind. By contrast, when synonymy fails we have homonymy. Likewise, we need the physical objects in order to enable us acquire concepts.
And the first question that we ask is, What do we begin with as far as knowledge is concerned? So, for instance, we first arrived by induction at the conclusion that all men are mortal, just by observing instances. The adherence to using Aristotle as "the final word" on many subjects curtailed true observation and experimentation, a fault that lies not with Aristotle, but with the use of his works.
His astronomical treatises argued for stars separate from the sun, but remained geocentric, an idea that would take Copernicus would later overthrow. Thus, by reflecting upon the aporiai regarding time, we are led immediately to think about duration and divisibility, about quanta and continua, and about a variety of categorial questions.
based on 55 review