SO there is a lot of discussion about how Aristotle set the framework for the western way of thinking. I think something really important to note when thinking about Aristotle and the west is that, to the best of my knowledge,(I may be wrong feel free to correct me) The United States was created by the founding fathers to be the “Next great society of the world”, the next Greece or the next Rome. Or at least that’s what The Nat Geo channel tells me. If that were true it would make sense that Western philosophy would draw heavily on Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle.
Another reason I think that Aristotle’s ideas have taken such a hold is because they are, in a way, very simple. Everything that he postulates makes SENSE. Everyone can understand the world through Aristotle’s lens because everyone posses the same baseline techniques of observation: The 5 Senses. If you take away everything you know about the world and observe, you could very logically draw the same conclusions that Aristotle did. It makes SENSE that air sits above water, it makes SENSE that in order for an object to move, and something has to move it.
And that’s why it’s so appealing and such a part of our ideology today, because you can sense it in the world around you. That’s something that appeals to the lowest common denominator, something that everyone can know, a universal truth. Thus, the ideas are popular and widespread. I know that is there. How? I can see it, I can touch it etc. Average non-philosopher people can agree on that.
Jenn brings up a really interesting point about spheres that Aristotle addresses a little tiny bit.
“ Since the natural tendency of Earth is to move towards the center of the universe it must arrange itself symmetrically around that point.” –pg. 9
This implies that symmetry is part of the nature of earth (and more largely maybe all things) its possible that symmetry is an intrinsic and a Truth for all things. We certainly see it in nature, we also see Asymmetry, but human tend to value symmetry (exception are things like Wabi Sabi but whatever) my real question here, is why do we value symmetry so much? Perfection?
To what Emily said about knowledge: “Do you guys think this means that no knowledge can be gained second hand, by hearing from others experience?”
We need to make a distinction between knowledge and understanding. Knowledge can be something that you are told, but understanding is something that you have to come to yourself through observation. Someone can tell me that 2 + 2 = 4, and I have that knowledge, but I don’t understand that concept, until I take four objects and break them down in to groups of 2.
I found the concept of an ideal reality in this reading interesting. Plato believed that all existence relates to an ideal, that for example, a perfect right triangle with equal sides and angles exists in theory and ideal, but may be naturally near impossible to achieve. Thus all objects and their qualities/composition cannot be inherent but belong to this ideal and exist separate from the object itself. Aristotle argued that no such ideal defines reality. Accordingly, individual objects relate to no eternal being but to themselves, their qualities and compositions inseparable from the whole, that matter constitutes a form and is unable to exist outside of a property/subject status.
In response to Jeremy’s question about social norms defining the “perfect world”, I feel as though societal implications play little part in influencing Plato’s theorized eternal being. Our perception of perfection may be relative when describing such realities as the Dog but such concepts as the previously mentioned right triangle or other mathematical properties, which define objects, seem to break this question. Here I feel science comes in as order, what is accepted as true, not by societal concurrence, but mathematical proof. Therefore Plato strikes me as a scientist, disregarding perception and applying scientific and mathematic infallibilities.
I am further interested in what Travis has to say towards the subject of Science. I think that so far our examination and understanding of “Science” has lead us to believe that application and experimentation provides our definition. I would like to challenge this by looking pointing to Aristotle’s model of the natural. If we accept his concept of the natural, the idea that all objects are defined by their tendency to behave in a certain manner, and his question of why one should experiment with the natural if an outside influence tests an objects nature, we will only prove through such experimentation that the object can be denied change, we should rather look to his logic. By Aristotle’s logic I don’t think we can discredit his theories. Through examination of objects without experimentation, we have seen his ideas to be true, or at least believable. Thus I feel his logic regarding predictability and natural tendencies and even potential forms, we can call Aristotle a scientist for he examined the smaller parts of a bigger picture. More or less what the big picture must rely on to exist.
Question: I found his reasoning that the universe exists eternally intriguing. To further his point that something cannot spring forth from nothing, what would it mean that our universe existed in what he described as “potential being”. What would its previous existence have been and from what did this potential existence change? If the universe or any object for that matter always existed potentially, can we accept this or do we feel Aristotle leaves to big a question left to be examined and answered?
To add on to what Jeremy had said, I would say one of the main reasons that Aristotle and his innovative and refreshing theories were so accepted were because they were progressive. They were different from the classic epistemological ideas that Plato continued to believe and teach; because it was different from the conventional way of approaching theories of knowledge, an opening for scientific and academic achievement in addition to understanding became available. There was an element of common sense in addition to experiential learning added to Aristotle's basis of thought, which also made it accessible to the general public!
Although there was still an element of the study that promoted an esoteric atmosphere. Anyone could try and understand the theories of knowledge and all that came with it, but few could excel in such a field.
To answer Jenn's questions, how is Aristotle related to both science and history, I think that modern study of both is based on Aristotle's individual-to-general reasoning, using systemically collected data to interpret and make sense of individual events and predict future ones in a grander context.
I think that even if, as Travis and Jeremy elaborated on, Aristotle didn't employ the controlled, systematic science processes that characterizes how we investigate causation, the idea that pursuit of truth can be based on studying the small and sensible to understand much larger ideas is what allowed for the development of modern science-- his methods were imperfect but that was built upon and modern scientific investigation is still imperfect and more importantly, still evolving. Which relates to what Christian was saying, that Aristotle's ideas were progressive and lent themselves to development.
In class when we were discussing history vs. science, some of what came up for science concerned "exactness" and having "one right answer"-- I thought it was interesting that Hannah argued that science is not necessary more inherently precise than history, but that its conclusions are more readily agreed upon as a result of the similarities of the analytic processes of the agree-ers.
I like what keaton had to ask about symmetry. I think that our idealization of symmetry is more Platonic than Aristotelian. Since symmetry implies an ideal of perfection, it is thus possible to equate it to Plato's theory of the eternal being. Therefore, we strive, as human beings, to relate all objects and realities to the flawlessness of symmetry. This brings another interesting point, which keaton touched upon, to light. What we accept as "true" naturally, or the "untrained eye's" understanding and deductive reasoning in relation to the world. Furthermore I feel asymmetry depends on symmetry, that asymmetry is a product of symmetry. That asymmetry is the object and symmetry is the eternal being. Without the object, we can still understand the ideal, but without the ideal, the asymmetrical object makes no sense. To what does asymmetry relate without symmetry? Surely the object and its properties mean nothing without the eternal being, a concept brought forth by Plato and challenged by Aristotle. I think this is an interesting concept to examine and I'm interested in what others have to say
I looked up these definitions for my use, but I figured others may find them helpful.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.[1][2][3][4] An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and convincingly explained
History the discipline that records and interprets past events involving human being
Philosophy: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
I feel as though the debates about symmetry and spherical shapes both underscore the human need to find seamless continuity among ideas. Because people seek to understand individual objects/events/ideas in terms of common denominators and unifying themes, most historical and scientific theories depend upon the reasoning that all things happen for a logical reason, and that all entities in the universe are interconnected. Aristotle's sense of order is almost like intelligent design, with all of nature supporting the divine existence and superiority of the human race. Everything has its place, and there's no room for void spaces that aren't occupied by matter. Like a convenient set of puzzle pieces, everything interlocks into an overarching structure, a stable hierarchy of principles. Agree? Disagree? Let's discuss!
First I just want to say that I really liked this reading and it was really interesting. When I began the reading, I was thinking that Aristotle was looking at the world in a purely historian and philosophy based way. Page 6 was when science first starts to come into play. He pinpoints the three categories for change, a philosophical way to look at it, but as soon as he asks why this happens it becomes a discussion about science.
I wanted to relate the dictionary definitions to the definitions we thought of in class on the board and relate them back to Aristotle. After reading this it is clear that someone can be all 3, a scientist, a historian and a philosopher. Because he is so obviously all three, I think some of the things that we put on the board about scientists and historians, were not true while some of them were enforced with this reading.
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
