In Contrast to Plato Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that sensory perceptions in the human soul are reflections of objects, and thoughts in consciousness are based on what we have already seen. He believed that humans have the innate power of reason, and the innate faculty of organizing things into categories and classes, but no innate ideas. No Innate Ideas Plato believed that the idea “chicken” came before the sensory world’s chicken, but Aristotle refused this theory. The form of chicken is eternal, but every chicken “flows,” meaning it can’t live forever. The form chicken is made up of a chicken’s characteristics, such as cackling and laying eggs. Therefore the form can not exist on its own, and can not be separated from any chicken. According to Aristotle, reality consists of separate things that constitute a unity of form and substance, which is what the object is made of. A chicken’s substance, for example, would be its feathers, flesh, beak, etc. Unlike form, substance still remains when a creature dies, and it as well has the potential to realize a specific form. Every change in nature is transformation from potential to the actual. For eggsample, a chicken’s egg has the potentiality to become a chicken, or to realise its form. In the case of nonliving organisms, an example to think about is that a stone’s form is to fall to the ground. The Final Cause Aristotle believed that there were four causes for the occurrences of life: the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause, and the final cause. When rain falls, the material cause is that the moisture is there when the air is cooling. The efficient cause is that moisture cools, the formal cause is the “form” of water is to fall, and the final cause is that so that plants can grow. Nature’s Scale E.g. Cats: Living Plants Creatures Animals Humans In Aristotle’s mind, there were no sharp boundaries in the natural world. His scale ranked living organisms from plants and simple animals to complicated animals, with man at the top of the scale, because man can grow and absorb food like plants and animals can, but also has specific human traits (i.e., he can think rationally). Women Another difference between Plato and Aristotle was that Aristotle believed that women were unfinished versions of man, and that children inherited solely the male’s characteristics because males are active in reproduction and females are passive. Aristotle believed that females were like the soil for the human seed to grow in – that man provided form, and woman substance.
In “Cruelty, Civility, and Other Weighty Matters” by Ann Marie Paulin, she was trying to get across a very important message: skinny doesn’t mean happy. The main idea was about how our culture in America encourages obesity because of the food choices they offer, how expensive weight loss pills and exercise bikes is, and etc., yet the culture also is prejudice against these same fat people that they encourage. It’s a constant back and forth in America between what is convenient with the little time we have in between everything we have to do each day and working out to be skinny enough for everyone to not judge you. Ms. Paulin wrote this article for literally everyone, this article was for skinny people to show them like hey, you’re not all
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.
The main concepts are how the egg and sperm reproduce, the challenges the sperm faces to get to the egg, how the egg and the sperm have evolved over time, and protein affects reproduction and reproductive failure. The outer shell of the egg has a sugary compound that allows the sperm to bind to the egg resulting sometimes in reproduction. The author says “Take for example, the conflicting needs of the egg and sperm during fertilization. Sperm are in a contest to win the race to the egg. Because they’re competing with each other, they need to get there and power their way in as quickly as possible. Eggs, on the other hand, don’t want to be rushed. Bombarded with tiny, l...
This country places great value on achieving the perfect body. Americans strive to achieve thinness, but is that really necessary? In his article written in 1986 entitled “Fat and Happy?,” Hillel Schwartz claims that people who are obese are considered failures in life by fellow Americans. More specifically, he contends that those individuals with a less than perfect physique suffer not only disrespect, but they are also marginalized as a group. Just putting people on a diet to solve a serious weight problem is simply not enough, as they are more than likely to fail. Schwartz wants to convey to his audience that people who are in shape are the ones who make obese people feel horrible about themselves. Schwartz was compelled to write this essay,
According to Descartes, Mind and Body are the 2 different kinds of substances that prevail not dependent on one another, but are connected to the absolute substance i.e. God. He believed that substances are the foundation for everything in this world. Substances are present naturally and act like a base.
Scholars with a more anthropological twist have written about the different social perceptions of obesity, e.g. the positive view of fatness among some indigenous peoples (Swinburne et al. 1996). In an article entitled, “An anthropological Perspective on Obesity “ (Brown and Konner 1987), the authors found that “cross cultural data about body preferences for women reveal that over 80% of cultures for which shape preference data are available, people prefer a plump shape” (cited in Sobal 2004, 383).
...perceive and to think, we need to have a BODY to carry the thinking and perceiving activity. Subject matter are more transparent and clear than object matter. For example, we see, we touch, we imagine wax so we come to the conclusion that wax does exit; the subject matter that carries these activity are self-explanatory.
For example, in the article, “The Political Economy of Obesity: The Fat Pay All”, author Alice Julier explains that in today’s society, important functions of obesity should lead to stigmatization of their size. Julier explains that important approaches to obesity is considering a food system that provides good food, despite their economic wage. Julier main points are the influence from media on obesity. Obesity has been an endangered concern for many years, however, many people are obsessed with idea of having a slim appearance which can discourage people with obesity. Julier explains that are different approaches from two sides. One side, are from anti-fat scientists who uses science and the media to criticize the food industry, media and lifestyles of Americans and fat researchers who advocate acceptance for different body sizes, even obesity. They’re main critics are how food are the primary factor. However, Julier explains that the critics dismantle the science behind obesity and how it should be considered as a disease state. For example, research shows that there are a relation between food and depression. Women who are depressed are more likely to consume a large amount of food, then they typically do. Therefore, it is best to
Meanwhile, Aristotle's hylomorphism is necessary here, however, in that he would like to be able to explain how living things are generated and change and grow. “For Aristotle this is the matter. Matter can take on new forms some of which are accidental while some our essential”. It is clear from this quote that Aristotle means something very different by his use of Forms. While Plato believed Forms were universal truths that can only be truly known to the immortal soul, Aristotle believed the Forms to be fully knowable through investigation unlike Plato's theory, “which sees individual things in this world as somehow participating in the unchanging world of the Forms, has difficult with explaining how thing...
...ause is used to answer “what is the thing?” And lastly the final cause is used to establish “what is the thing’s purpose or function?” In the example of the car its material cause was the metal, rubber, glass, and plastic it was made of. The efficient cause was the designer from where the car was thought of and the factory where it was put together. The formal cause was that it was in fact a car because it had four wheels, an engine, and could transport people. And the final cause was that its function was to transport people from one place to another. The final cause is of crucial importance as it determines the former three and can be used interchangeably with the formal cause, as the cars “whatness” and the cars “for which” is basically the same thing. One can now use and apply these four causes in their life in order to gain knowledge and understanding of things.
...edge that one already has, the Forms are used as reference points that allow you to identify other things. In this sense, Forms answer the question of what a thing is.
The forms are known as universals. All particulars are flawed and the form is perfect. An example of this would be an airplane. The airplane flying in the sky is represented as the form and the shadow of the plane on the ground is the particular. The airplane in the sky is more real than the shadow of the plane. The relation between these two, the forms and the particulars, is the idea of participation. Plato states that the particular is participating in a form. This participation is known as methexis. A way to describe this is with humans. The form of human is perfect but a particular human is flawed. Plato’s studies was known as Ontology. The meaning of ontology is the study of being real things. Plato discusses the issue of one vs. many. This idea of one vs many was influenced by Socrates. This states that the one (forms) is priority over the many which is the particulars or examples. Plato discusses how we are born with knowledge of these forms. This innate knowledge is in our soul, as we do philosophy we relocate the
According to Aristotle, all natural things on this earth both animate and inanimate have a built in purpose. Added to that concept, he felt that nature as grand whole itself had a purpose or greater design as well. However, Aristotle that these category of things remained fixed and hence did not believe in evolution, he did speak of a grand hierarchy amongst all things on this planet. The scala naturae refers to the fact that nature is arranged in a hierarchy ranging from neutral matter to the unmoved mover, which is pure actuality and is the cause of everything in nature. Aristotle felt that the unmoved mover is what gives all objects their true purpose in life. In his works, the closer to the unmoved mover something is the purer and perfect
Descartes held that a person consists of a material body and an immaterial soul. This simply meant that the immaterial soul “requires that central aspects of a person such as consciousness, memories, and personality are not contingent upon our physical bodies.” Whereas material body is the opposite. I believe it is accurate to say argue that material objects exist only when it is manifested in some shape or other while an immaterial soul exists only if consciousness is manifested in some thought of feeling.
Aristotle refuted Plato’s idea of the forms. He felt that the forms caused neither movement nor change, nor helped to understand what is real and what is knowable. Aristotle presents the concept of substance in his work “The Categories”. He states that substance is the fusion of matter and form. Matter is that out of which the substance arises and form is that into which the matter develops. In building a table, the wood, nails, etc., are the matter. The idea of a table is the form, and the construction is the fusion, and the end result is the substance.