Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:50 am Post subject: Due Thursday: Aristotle
Be able to answer the following questions and please post your answer to one of the bullets. We would also like you to respond to someone else's post. If you need help with any of the ideas, please post those questions as well.
• What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
• What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
• What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
• How do the heavens and the earth differ with regard to: what they are made of, what kind of change occurs, what kind of motion exists
• What are the important features/characteristics of his biological system?
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: Aristotle
Aristotle believed that reality was what people could physically observe through their senses. He viewed the physical world as reality. He believed that there were ‘subjects’ which then had their own individual ‘properties’. The example of dogs that they use in the reading is a very good one. The overall category (dogs) can then be broken down into smaller and smaller categories (breed, gender, color, personality).
Plato had almost a completely opposite view of reality than Aristotle. He believed that the only true reality was eternal forms. He believed that these eternal forms were completely independent and that the physical world was simply derived from those eternal forms.
It is interesting to me that although Aristotle studied with Plato for a long time he formed his personal view of reality as basically a mirror of Plato’s.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject: Response to Sonia and my answer to the second question.
How I interpreted Aristotle’s ideas on reality was more like a group of like subjects (like dogs) all had a certain set of like features that made it possible to group them together, but each dog had attributes that made them individuals, rather than imperfect copies derived of a perfect form of a dog like Plato believed.
In acquiring knowledge, experience is what makes one able to distinguish differences and similarities between subjects. The example used in the text about dogs on page 5, on the left side, describes how one can come to recognize a dog after observing dogs repeatedly. The experience is most like inductive knowledge. Once one has had the experience to recognize subjects, he/she can then use logic and learn deductively based on what He/she already knows.
Lastly, I have a question but I don’t know if it really relates to anything we are meant to be thinking about. Well, here it is anyway:
In the cosmology section, Aristotle often refers to what we call outer space as ‘the heavens’ and that it is made up of a “incorruptible fifth element”(page 7) Do people think that this view had any religious ideas behind it? Why or why not?
I think the heavens idea had something to do with god(s) because of the last page or so of the reading. Aristotle had an idea of the Prime Mover being, "a living deity, representing the highest good..." (page 11). The idea of a higher being controlling and being accountable for the movement of the stars and planets seems religious for sure, especially if the Prime Mover is representing a higher good. Also, Aristotle believed there were multiple movers, or Unmoved Movers. Each celestial sphere had one. This reminds me of the multiple gods in ancient Greek religion. The quintessence of the heavens also seems somewhat god like; the rest of the world only has 4 essences, and then in outer space there's this new exclusive one, separating the human world from the celestial (god's?) world.
I'm also going to answer the second question a little.
It seemed like Aristotle highly valued logic and common sense, maybe more than anything else. "Aristotle's world is not a world of chance and coincidence, but an orderly, organized world, a world of purpose..." (page 7) There also seems to be a lot of logic behind his ideas of opposites. (dry vs wet, hot vs cold) Aristotle even called these the "sensible qualities" (page 8) The sensible qualities were also logically represented as the building blocks of Empedocles/Plato's four elements. Aristotle also spent his youth traveling and educating himself by experience, a trend continued through his adult life by denying controlled experimentation. So yeah, Aristotle loved his logic and hands on experience.
My question is, what do you think about Aristotle basing his theories on a steadfast belief that everything must be predictable? did he try to hard to fulfill his logic requirements that he ignored other possible theories?
I thought of Plato's and Aritstotle's ideas of reality in terms of the activity we did in class today. I think if Plato were in our class, he would have belonged to the East group because his thoery was much more "big picture" than Aristotle's. His idea of reality was about finding "the universal features of things.". (pg. 5) I agree with Knaide, in the example she used, that this theory was about naming and defining the ideal dog, not at all about paying attention to the details that made each individual dog different.
Aristotle, on the other hand, would have been in the West group because most of his ideas were extremely oriented. When I got to the section "Aristotle as a Biologist" (pg.11) it said that in his zoological studies he created a purpose and order for every animal. In fact it was his detailed book History of Animals that helped future scientists.
I don't have an answer to Knaide's question, but I had similar confusion. Science and Religion, historically have not mixed, so I thought it was interesting that Aristotle was trying to explain the heavens with scientific facts. On second thought, is it safe to call Aristotle a scientist? He didn't, in fact use experimentation.
Lastly, I kept being reminded of a class I took last year called Propositional Calculus and Logic. The basis of the class was If...then... statements and I kept seeing them pop up in this reading. I think logic must have been an important part of Aristotle's theories.
Aristole's view of reality as a subject (form) and the subjects form (matter). The form can change but its presence of being, matter, is real. So in a way it is existent in the real world. Hence they must be dependent on one another for their existence. Also that this idea of "form" and "matter" are united and that they cannot be separate. Plato's idea of reality was through eternal forms. These eternal forms are independent and require no help to exist. One example that came into my head was ghosts. Some people believe in ghosts while others don't but according to Plato, ghosts are reality because they aren't necessarily dependent on anything to exist.
What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
The role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge is the key to acquiring knowledge according to Aristotle. Experience is necessary for knowledge to be known. Experience leads to memory which leads to insight. So experience helps you to question things and have insight into new ideas.
My personal definition of change is a difference of form within two or more similar objects. Aristotle's belief was a difference of potential and actuality, what something could be or what it actually is. The four "causes" define an object in change. It's similar to human evolution (darwin's theory). If we went from being primates (form received by thing) to changing our physical and internal state (the matter which persists through change) to our surroundings changing (agency that brings out change) and lastly becoming human beings (purpose served by change), then through change we are defined as human beings according to a theory.
Heavens : eternally unvarying circular motion, filled with aether, and divided into spherical shells with hold the planets.
Earth: circular shadow cast in a north-south position, earth is spherical, four elements that make up earth
Important Features : Explanation, fact that he uses zoology instead of human studies, the way he came up with hierarchy.
Plato's theory of forms: Ideas, not material things, are the fundamental kind of reality. Aristotle believed in individuality. For example, he stood by the idea that every human is and should be different, while Plato thought that there is a perfect 'form' of human.
Aristotle believed that repetition of experiences requiring senses can increase the expertise on whatever knowledge the experience provides.
Aristotle believed that change is the absence or abstraction of something becoming a solid, tangible form. He thought that a completed change is the transformation of a non-being or a potential being to an actual being. The four Aristotelian causes dictate that there are four main factors that bring about change: The shape or form of the matter, the substance that makes up this form, the cause of the change, and the final product.
Seeing as its movements seem infinite and unvarying, Aristotle believed that the heavens are comprised of some mysterious fifth element not found on Earth. He believed that there is no void space in the heavens. He taught that out of the four elements, earth and water are the two heaviest, which is why they gravitate towards the center of the Earth and why the Earth is mainly made up of these elements. Air and fire, however, are lighter, which is why these are the materials that gravitate most towards the sky.
Aristotle was fascinated by the biological science of zoology. Despite the fact that this subject was frowned upon by scholars of his time period, he found a way to link his discoveries of the nature of animals to human nature, stating that animals and humans closely resemble each other in various ways. Aristotle's book History of Animals was a breakthrough contribution in the field of zoology.
You gotta love the four causes, they’re so applicable. That said, I keep falling into the same trap when I get to the Final cause. There’s Formal Cause, ,the change itself, The Material cause, the stuff the change happened to, The Efficient Cause, or the force that triggered the change, and then we get to the Final Cause, which is the cause that explains why the efficient cause triggered the change. The Final cause puts thing in context, but when does context end? In the reading they use a statue as an example, explaining that it was probably made to celebrate a Greek hero and because the greeks liked statues it gave reason for the marble to be carved ect. But can you put the statue in context, without also knowing the myth of the hero it depicts, and can you really understand a myth without knowing the culture, on an on and on. It feels like if you don’t know everything it isn’t safe to assume anything.
Especially since Aristotle seems to assume that predictability will be observable. I think he even uses this to disprove spaces in-between molecules.
Tess,this is just a guess but i think the final product becomes the raw product for a new cycle of change. And I agree with you, they are great and very applicable.
on another note,
My interpretation of what knowledge is from Aristotle’s explanation is consisted of two and a half components: experience, it must be empirical (the half component), and deduction. Experience is what gives you context; therefore it must be empirical because you do not know what you have not experienced. Then you analyze and deduce (by common sense and logic) what you had experienced to produce knowledge. The more you experience, the more knowledge you acquire, allowing you to better deduce future experiences.
But I do have a question. On page one the author mentions a philosophical system, what exactly is that? I have the general idea but are there any specifics to it?
-side note: i found the reading very interesting but it took me a very long time to read it.
Aristotle believed that reality was about the being of an individual object. He said that the traits that make up an individual do not have a prior existence, rather they are part of the individual, not a separate individual. These individuals he called "subjects". Aristotle's distinction between the subject and its properties was like the difference between warmth and the warm object. The warmth warms the warm object, but its not a separate subject, its part of the individual.
To answer Kate's question about if Aristotle is really a scientist if he didn't do experiments, I would say yes. I believe a scientist is someone who is always questioning and digging deeper into ideas and thoughts... They do not necessarily have to work in a lab or complete experiments but are able to support their "findings" or teachings with sufficient evidence, which Aristotle is able to do.
I am very confused about " what is change question" with the "4 causes"? I understand the 3 causes with the potential being, nonbeing, and actual being, but I got lost form there...
My interpretation of Aristotle's belief that first-hand experience was central to acquiring knowledge is very similar to Sonya's. He built his epistemology primarily on sensory experiences and developed intuition and philosophical reflection from there. This complete trust of attaining knowledge through the senses directed his interest towards "concrete individuals, of nature, and of change- a world encountered through the senses." (pg.5) unlike Plato, who was drawn more towards eternal forms. Similarly, his approach to testing out his theories of knowledge sounds like one he could own and conduct using his senses- "Aristotle did not proceed by following a methodological recipe book, but rather by rough and ready methods, familiar procedures that had proved themselves in practice..." (5)
I was wondering throughout the reading why Aristotle seemed to insist so heavily that there is absolutely no void or empty space. I think now that I've re-read about his ability to make sense of these larger questions through individual attainable experience, the thought of empty or void space must have seemed far to ambiguous for Aristotle to merely accept. What were your takes on Aristotle's rejection of void space?
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:25 pm Post subject: Question #1 and #2
The statement, "...true knowledge must be of the truly real," (pg. 5) I find really interesting because I think it applicable to both questions 1 and 2. I think it shows the differences in Plato's and Aristotle's beliefs as well as it explaining Aristotle's use of experience in acquiring knowledge- which lead to his philosophies.
In regards to question 1 the statement was taken in different directions by Plato and Aristotle because of the differences in their beliefs. Based off of Plato's basic disbelief of reality being found by senses in the physical world (which is exactly what Aristotle defends) it is explained that he believed true knowledge is the eternal forms which was found through reason or philosophical reflections. While Aristotle, following his philosophy of individuals being the main realities, found knowledge in the individuals of the world- which directly opposing Plato's beliefs, is a world experienced through using senses.
Question 2 asks about the role of this experience in gaining the knowledge being talked about. I think what the statement is saying is basically, what comes with knowledge gained through experience is reality. In the explanation of the process of acquiring knowledge the first step is sense experience. On page 5, beginning of third paragraph it states, "knowledge is thus gained by a process that begins with experience." Therefore, if experience equals knowledge and knowledge is reality, then experience is a huge role in everything Aristotle believes in.
To Aristotle change is a natural occurrence that an object undergoes (I’m a bit dubious about using the word “undergoes here”) within specific circumstances. There are three aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy that are intrinsic to an understanding of his theory on change.
1) There are three sates stages “associated with being: 1) nonbeing, 2) potential being, and 3) actual being” (pg 6).
2) With every change that occurs the four causes should be identifiable, and are an intrinsic part of the change. They explain what changes (formal cause), what eternal object is undergoing the change (material cause), what caused the change (efficient cause), and why the changed happened in the first place (final cause). (pg 6)
3) “The world we inhabit is an orderly one… every natural object has a “nature”” (pg 6) Thus every change is a natural, unavoidable occurrence.
This is by far the aspect of change that interests me most. Operating under this perception the world takes on a shade of grim inevitability. Everything that occurs is a predestined aspect of an object’s nature. How can we exist in a world where everything is natural, where we have no control or free will? It feels like a perpetually hopeless philosophy to me. I’m not really expecting people to answer that, but it’s something that kept coming up for me during the reading.
Dylan’s question about Aristotle basing his theories off the assumption that everything is predictable also interests me. Now physics is based off of probability and chaos, but the author of this article asserts that Aristotle’s theories are simply applicable to a different world and should be considered equally valuable. Aristotle perceived everything as sensible, a world of black and white and absolutes. I’m having difficulty deciding if I still find Aristotle’s philosophies relevant in our world. And I’m also trying to decide if I can believe that both worlds exist (our world of chaos, Aristotle’s world of logical order).
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:28 pm Post subject:
After defineing forms and matters, the author then introduced the reader to Aristotle’s belief in changes.
Aristotle believed that “change is genuine” (page 5) and he proved it by using his own doctrine to explaine the concept. He believed that “ when an object undergoes change, its form changes (by a process of replacement, the new form replacing the old one) while its matter remains.” (page 5) From my interpretation, he belived that the property of an object will change, but what is inside the object remains the same. He used passing corridor as a metaphor for an object undergoing a change. Aritotle also proposed three categories of beings.- nonbeing, potential being, and active being to explaine the concept of changing. The example that the authur uses is seed turing into a tree, which is potential being turns to active being.
However, without knowing the causes of changes, the doctrin cannot fully be explained. Aristotle believed that the universe is in order that every object has an attibute. The respective nature of the objec is then the forces for causing changes. He seperated the causes into four groups- formal causes, maerial cause, efficient cause, and final cuase. Formal cause is the form of the thing; material cause is the matter of the subject; efficient cause is the agency that brings changes; and fianl causes is the purpose of the change.
While I was reading the passage, I knew there were some parts that Plato and Aristotle were different, but when I thought more critically than the first time I read it, I found it interesting that although Aristotle said he disagreed with Plato, some of his idea was overlaped with Plato’s. Like what Kate said, Plato gave the big picture and Aristato provided detail.
The question I have is- Do you think Aristotle’s idea is different than Plato’s or you think that they have the same concept just incorporated it differently?
It is fascinating how the Aristotle was the student of Plato, but their views of reality are vastly different. Plato believes there are two worlds, the ideal world and the sensible world. The objects that exist in an ideal world, cannot exist in a sensible world. Using the dog example, Plato would believe that in the ideal world, there is only one dog. This dog is the principle dog, or the universal dog. Then all of the other dogs that exist in the sensible world derive from this one principle dog existing only in the ideal world.
How Aristotle's views differ, is that there is no ideal world, rather only the sensible world. Going back to the dog example, using all the characteristics and traits of this object (the dog) you are then able to discover or invent what a dog is. Once this primary idea of what a dog is, is what all other ideas of dogs stem from, all within a sensible world.
Going off Sonia's post, I almost fully agree with her. I do not think that Aristotle and Plato's views are completely opposite, because they share the idea of universal discovery. Also, when she mentioned how the category of dogs are broken into smaller categories, I think that smaller categories do not derive from the idea of a dog, rather those smaller categories are what make up the characteristics of the dog.
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
