Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle's works short essay
Reflection on aristotle's philosophy
Essay on aristotles ideas
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle's works short essay
#3
Aristotle has eight points that prove an actual void cannot exist. The void is not a condition of motion; Aristotle argues that not all motions need the void. He then argues the point that the void is not an interval, if a void is a place with nothing in it, than it would not be a void because it is a place. Next the void is inconsistent with motion because it goes against the doctrine of natural motion. Because projectiles move parallel to the Earth if there was a void there would be no medium for it to be moved through. Next an argument found at (215a 20), discusses the fact that objects stop in certain places rather than another or continuing to infinity proves there is not a void. Next, there is motion all throughout the universe and there is no motion in the void therefore there can be no void. Density is another factor, some people the space between atoms is where the void is. Aristotle says that difference in density is due to changes and that according to Aristotle does not require a void. He gives his final arguments on (216a 27) involving a cube and the void and his point is that the void is a thing rather than place with no body. Aristotle determines through these arguments that the void does not exist in nature.
#6
(239b 5-7) Zeno basically states that when the arrow is in a place it is at rest, at every moment it is flying through the air it is in a place its own size. Because of this at every moment in its flight it is at rest. Aristotle’s argument to this is that Zeno incorrectly assumes that time is made up of now’s. Aristotle’s solution is found at (239b 8-10). For Aristotle there is no motion in the now, so therefore the arrow is not at rest during its flight. Lines are not made up of points, time is not ...
... middle of paper ...
...ion and motion goes in a circle because it is complete and continuous. His final argument is that the unmoved mover (who is indivisible and has no parts because it is an infinite force and an infinite force cannot have a magnitude because that limits it) applies circular locomotion to the heavenly spheres, whom then passes the motion on to everything else.
#8
The study of motion is so central to the book; motion defines nature, time and is what causes process of change. Motion is an important aspect of understanding the physics of the world because the world is constantly in motion. Because motion is mentioned in the definition of nature, any discussion of nature will rely upon the explanation of motion. So in Aristotle’s attempt to define and understand the physics of the world heavily relied on motion and is the reason it is mentioned in every book of the physics.
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.
Melissa is more likely to be attracted to Aristotle’s basic orientation and his view on the soul. Melissa’s mind set leans more towards the scientific thought process when it comes to life and death. Like Aristotle her beliefs are more of the here and now. Making due with the reality put in front of them. Even though Melissa’s thoughts and beliefs mostly come with facts she still has some belief that there is something beyond the body that makes Matthew who he is, Matthew. But with that belief she also thinks without brain function there is no Matthew to save. It is a body with no ability to think and live. So like Aristotle she does think that there is a soul that is a part of our bodies. But without the ability to think then you are not living.
...e ultimate cause of everything? While its minor problems are resolved quite easily, Aristotle’s argument for the unmoved mover is predicated on a premise of unknown stability: philosophy. At the heart of the issue is the very nature of philosophy itself and its ability to tackle questions of any magnitude. If everything is knowable, and philosophy is the path to knowledge, then everything must be knowable through philosophy, yet the ad infinitum paradox Aristotle faces is one that shows that the weakest part of his argument is the fact it relies on the abovementioned characteristics of philosophy. If any one of those is wrong, his proof crumbles and the timeless God in which he believes goes along with it, but if they are all right, then there is one God, immovable and actuality, for as Aristotle says, “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler” (1076a).
It is a generally accepted fact that Aristotle's physics and astronomy were the weakest of his areas of study. He made discoveries and developed theories in biology, ethics, and drama that still hold a great deal of importance in those fields today. However, many of his theories and hypotheses were not disproved unitl the nineteenth century and his original concept of a uniform and consistant flow of time was accepted by Newton and still has its place in physics today. We really cannot discount the scientific contributions of a man whose ideas have survived for over 2000 years.
Aristotle believes that before the concept of time there were three kinds of substances, two of them being physical and one being the unmovable. The three substances can be described as one being the “sensible eternal”, the second being the “sensible perishable” and the third substance being the immovable. To further this theory the sensible perishable can be seen as matter, the sensible eternal as potential, and the immovable can be seen as that which is Metaphysical and belongs to another science. According to Aristotle, the immovable is God. It is the immovable that sets the sensible perishable into motion and therefore turns the potential into the actual.
To open Chapter 6 of Lambda in Metaphysics, Aristotle states, “Since there were three kinds of substance, two of them natural and one unmovable, regarding the latter we must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance. For substances are the first of existing things, and if they are all destructible, all things are destructible. But it is impossible
Aristotle's Theory of the Soul in the De Anima centres on the kinds of souls possessed by different kinds of living things, distinguished by their different operations. He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible. Aristotle uses his familiar matter/form distinction to answer the question “What is soul?” he says that there are three sorts of substance which are matter, form and the compound of the matter and form. Aristotle is interested in compounds that are alive. These - plants and animals - are the things that have souls. Their souls are what make them living things. Aristotle also argues that the mind is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal by “Saying that something has a soul just means that it is alive”
He then go on to giving us the theory of flux by Heraclitus. The theory of flux is based on the claim that all things are constantly changing. The view is that no objects is stably consistent with stably existing properties. The explanation for this is that everything in which any basis can be functional, according to one perception, can also have the cancelation of that basis applied to it, according to an opposite perception. Socrates gives us a few statements that Heraclitus implies with his theory. The first is that all qualities do not exist in time or space independently. The second is that qualities do not exist except in perception of the...
To know a thing, says Aristotle, one must know the thing’s causes. For Aristotle the knowledge of causes provides an explanation. It is a way to understand something. Because of the importance of causality to knowledge and understanding, Aristotle developed something like the complete doctrine of causality, distinguishing efficient, material, formal, and final causes, and later concepts of causality have been derived from his analysis by omission. Aristotle’s four causes gives answers to the questions related to the thing to help ascertain knowledge of it, such as what the thing is made of, where the thing comes from, what the thing actually is, and what the thing’s purpose is. The thing’s purpose is used to determine the former three, in addition to the purpose being basically the same thing as what the thing actually is, as the purpose of the thing is used to determine whether or not a thing is what it is.
To the modern reader, Aristotle's views on astronomy, as presented in Metaphysics, Physics, De Caelo (On the Heavens) and Simplicius' Commentary, will most likely seem very bizarre, as they are based more on a priori philosophical speculation than empirical observation. Although Aristotle acknowledged the importance of "scientific" astronomy - the study of the positions, distances and motions of the stars - he nevertheless treated astronomy in the abstract, linking it to his overall philosophical world picture. As a result, the modern distinction between physics and metaphysics is not present in Aristotle, and in order to fully appreciate him we must try to abandon this pre-conception. Aristotle argued that the universe is spherical and finite. Spherical, because that is the most perfect shape; finite, because it has a center, viz. the center of the earth, and a body with a center cannot be infinite. He believed that the earth, too, is a sphere. It is relatively small compared to the stars, and in contrast to the celestial bodies, always at rest. For one of his proofs of this latter point, he referred to an empirically testable fact: if the earth were in motion, an observer on it would see the fixed stars as moving, just as he now observes the planets as moving, that is from a stationary earth. However, since this is not the case, the earth must be at rest. To prove that the earth is a sphere, he produced the argument that all earthly substances move towards the center, and thus would eventually have to form a sphere.
Aristotle, a name well known even now like the gods of ancient Greece such as Zeus and Poseidon, his name is well known because of the questions he asked and the way he viewed the world that would make those of a simple mind scratch their heads. People whom do not question anything think he is insane and by right he may have been a little mad, but we as humans are all a little off kilt. As this you can look at the views of Aristotle and if you are not one of a simple mind and can look at it in a critical thinking way, you can analyze his views to see if you agree or disagree that in fact he thinks that all things in this world are physical, and that everything has a purpose. Aristotle is correct in the case that all things are physical, because are matter, he also does not bring religion into his statement, yet does not discredit an artisan; he also states that all things do in fact have a purpose, and are something believable.
The Flying Arrow is a statement against an arrow moving as it is flying through the air. Zeno says that in order for motion to happen, an entity would need to modify its position. He uses an arrow in flight as an illustration. Zeno says that the arrow can’t move to where it is not because time is not elapsing to accomplish said task. He also states that the arrow cannot move to where it is because the arrow can’t occupy the space it is already in. Thus he argues that an arrow is motionless. In other words if you took pictures of an arrow flying in each individual picture the arrow would appear to not move it is only when you put the pictures together does the arrow appear to move. This paradox set by Zeno argues that motion that occurs through space are points. Each instant is just another point of space, or another picture.
Sir Isaac Newton is the man well known for his discoveries around the term, Motion. He came up with three basic ideas, called Newton’s three laws of motion.
Aristotle. The Poetics of Aristotle. Trans. S. H. Butcher. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Print.
Although Aristotle grew up under the ideas of Plato, through time he began to develop his own theories and views about philosophical thoughts (Aristotle Biography, 2015). Aristotle believed that in order to understand the natural world to the fullest, one must use each of the five senses, all of which we use to this day. Aristotle also had his own views of the world, especially the astronomy of it. He believed the earth was at the center of the universe and the remaining planets, only 5 known at the time, were circling around it (Worldview of Ancient Greece - Socrates, Plato & Aristotle, n.d.). We know now that his views on this matter are not taught and the planets revolve around the