Aristotle relies heavily on basic observation and logic in his process of understanding and "quest for knowledge." (page 5) I drew a basic flow chart in the margin of my packet when the author broke down this down that basically went from SENSE experience to memory to inution to knowledge. That's not as helpful as it is in my margin. But from that process, Aristotle is able to further "discern the universal features of things" which ties into the first question about the differences between Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies. The role of sense experience is huge since he so strongly believes, unlike PLato, that the real world is a sensible world, made up of "changeable individuals" (page 5). And through common sense, logic, and deductive reasoning, Aristotle is able to combine and overlap all of his opinions and theories. His attention to detail and his belief that "the world we inhabit is an orderly one" where most things are and can be predicted, since "every natural object has a nature," this loops back to his original idea of a sensible world. In the cosmology section, Aristotle talks about the cosmos and the elements and how they intertwine in the universe. He mentions how the earth and water fall into the center since they are heavy, and that air and fire do the opposite. In an ideal world, Aristotle states that the restrictions that these elements put on each other as part of their nature would not be present and instead there would be prefectly formed rings/spheres of each element. That last bit then relates back to the beginning idea that Aristotle is very adiment on seperating the ideal/eternal world that Plato so heavily relies on, from his own observational and knowledge based opinion.
According to Aristotle, reality, which constitutes the world we live in, can be acquired through our senses. The series of ‘sensed inputs’ will be converted as experience, the induction. The accumulated experiences will turn into memory. Based on the deductive information, the memories, we can derive ‘insight,’ the knowledge. As the example of the dog shows, it seems like we accept the ‘forms’ of subject, the dog in this case, through senses, store the experience as the knowledge, and when we see the other dog, we compare the ‘forms’ we received before with the forms of the dog we are currently seeing, judging the object as the dog.
In response to Niko's post , I think you're right. They disagree on some aspects, but they do overlap. It's funny, because at the start of the reading Aristotle rejects the idea that there is an "ideal" dog, and that dogs aren't just flawed misprints of an "ideal". But later, when he talks about the planets, he claims they rotate because they "endeavor to imitate it's [The Prime Mover's] changeless perfection" Which sounds reminiscent of an Plato's ideals.
Aristotle defines change based on his notions of potentiality and actuality. He starts with the basic idea that change is genuine. He goes on to say change "is the actualization of a thing's ability in so far as it is able." The four Aristotelian causes help us further understand the purpose of change. These causes are called formal cause (the form received by a thing), material cause (the matter underlying that form), efficient cause (the agency that brings about change) and final cause (the purpose served by the change.) I found the production of a statue example extremely helpful in understanding the concepts of these causes.
Experience and logic play a great role in acquiring knowledge. The article clearly states" knowledge is thus gained by a process that begins with experience." We first use our senses to obtain knowledge then store our experiences as memories. We use these memories to investigate the "universal feature of things." Although, to begin the process of gaining knowledge you must work off of prior experiences, logic is key to obtaining "true knowledge". As the article states, "what we learn by this inductive process does not acquire the status of true knowledge until put into deductive form."
Like Bree, the predictability aspect of change intrigued me. I have always been drawn to discussions of fate and predetermined destinies. The idea that our future is inevitable is truly frightening. There is a natural desire for us to desire control over our futures and struggle to draw out our own path. This theory completely obliterates that desire. Aristotle's world leaves no room for chance and coincidence but leaves us with an organized world in which things focus on our natures and our predetermined ends.
In regards to Naya's question, I feel that Aristotle rejects void space because of his sensible mindset. He is very into precision and calculation. Also he believes that water and air are endlessly contininous therefore leaving no room for empty space.
Also, the part of the article about the Prime Mover and the Unmoved Mover confused me.
Last edited by mreilly on Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:58 pm Post subject: That Aristotle.
I completely lost my train of thought, but have left this in here incase someone can get something out of it...
As I read about the "Prime Mover" the top of page 11, I kept jumping from thought to thought, I found it hard to think clearly about his philosophy as it continued to relate back to early points he made.
The Prime mover is a living diety, and is itself the final cause for the motion of the planetary spheres, because the celestial spheres wish "to imitate its changeless perfection by assuming eternal uniform circular motions". At first I thought this statement was all fine and dandy, but then thought about it for a bit. Aristotle believes changelessness is perfect, but...
Even 2000 years ago, interdisciplinary study was hot stuff, Aristotle learned through his studies in biology to help prove his points and beliefs in his philosophy. Aristotle didn't seem to believe in chance, or at least he was striving to philosophically end the idea of it. He viewed the world free of "chance and coincidence" and "orderly... in which things develop toward ends determined by their natures"(page 7). Later in the packet, part of his purpose as biologist is to provide "us with a golden opportunity to refute the notion that the works of nature are products of CHANCE".
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:59 pm Post subject: Aristotle
I'm not sure if this is frowned upon or not, but I found something interesting on a thread from the previous section on Art of Prediction. From Jenny Kessler, class of 2011.
Quote:
On page 6, it is mentioned that Aristotle, although a staunch empiricist, never performed any kind of controlled experimentation, especially in pursuit of nature and causation. The reading goes on to explain that it would be irrelevant to try and execute an experiment on the topic of causation, as it would tell us nothing. I assume, then, that Aristotle derived his theories based on what he saw during his daily interactions with the world. He alludes to this in his discussion of form and matter as well. By looking at the individual, he is able to abstract some kind of baseline pattern that applies to all things. His interactions are, arguably, daily experiments in which he forms a hypothesis, makes observations, and reaches conclusions.
We can distinguish Plato and Aristotle through their perception of the theoretical versus the tangible. Plato’s concepts rely on the transition of perfect to imperfect. He understands the sensible world as a derivative of a more perfect world, reflected in his concept of perfect shapes. Aristotle looks at it from the other way around. Both would address the importance of observing the world around us, but from there, the two go off in different directions.
I think the second part may shed some light on how Aristotle's view of reality differed from Plato's. What struck me in the reading, and in Jenny's nice response, is how universal Aristotle's theories must have seemed. They addressed every aspect of existence. (What more could you ask for?) They were accepted as truth for centuries because they focused on what everyone could experience. And on the philosophical side, rather than the scientific one, I ask you: Could you be satisfied by a theory? What would it take to find a beautiful universal truth? Scientists keep searching for the theory of everything (TOE) which would combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but Aristotle was brilliant because he came up with his own four part theory of everything. What if instead of chemistry, all you had to understand was that everything is comprised of Air Water Earth and Fire? That wouldn't require a massive 200 dollar textbook...Not surprisingly, its poetic simplicity caught on. [correct me if I'm wrong here.]
To me, It is so cool that over 1000 years before Newton changed the world, Aristotle had already formulated a theory about all actions having reactions. Over 1000 years before the age of exploration, Aristotle claimed the world was round. He also figured that matter cannot be created or destroyed; rather changed from one form to another.
Physicists may bash him for being incorrect about mechanics, but in terms of using basic intuition to puzzle out the world, Aristotle was a god among men. I think he had a great deal of faith in order, rather than chaos, and this was still when everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe, so they were a little full of themselves, but all said and done, Aristotle gave us a whole lot to ponder.
Last edited by edalven on Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Epistemology is defined as the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. In other words, the theory of knowledge.
Aristotle defined true knowledge as being truly real, saying that it is "gained by a process that begins with experience. My interpretation is true knowledge is indeed, practical knowledge being both genuine and emperial.
His views on property v. subject confuses me a bit. He says, "Property has to be the property of something; we call that something it's subject." If the object however behaves in it's customary fashion would it still be deemed a subject?
Aristotle define science as "doing your damnedest, no holds barred." If he believed true knowledge was the gained by a process that begins with experience, how could he ride off science as hogwash?
I need more time to understand this guys thoughts. Let's keep going tomorrow in class. We should all converse.
This is douglas, for some reason the thing wouldn't let me do an other user name so i have to use this. an i sincerely i apologize.
Aristotle's view of reality doesn't exactly differ completely from plato's, it just represents two different views on the same observations. Plato seems to believe in the eternal parts of beings (somewhat a more spiritual course) while aristotle seems to believe only what he can physically experience himself, if he can't see it it's not real. or something to that extent.
i feel like aristotle's veiw on gaining knowledge is interesting but incomplete, there's also the gaining of knowledge second hand from a book. but i think he may have ignored this other idea because to truely learn sometyhing for yourslef you ahve to experience it.
i have the same enthusiasm for the change princples that tess and jessica do. and i agree with jessica saying that the final change is the creation a more potential change.
i found his refusal of void space and a fifth element in space very interesting, and it reminded me of the "discovery" (it's more a theory with evidence) of dark matter in space, filling up what should be void space.
his heirarchy system for animal species is rather cruel but also in a way somewhat true i suppose, if you go by his logic.
i find it odd that he believes that a persons soul just dissapeers when he is refusing to accept the notion of things just appearing, so why would he believe th opposite
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
