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. Looking though and trying to understand exactly what Aristotle means in his writing is not an easy task by any means. But in trying to see what he meant and also see if in fact to agree or disagree that is in fact very difficult, when truly not fully understanding …show more content…
Which in turn creates formed matter. Without one you cannot have the other. Unlike with Plato where everything is perspective and that we only see copies that are lacking perfection because they are in this other world of Forms. Claiming that there are two worlds that run simultaneously but that we as humans may never see because we cannot break free of the chains. Aristotle states that everything is in one world. Which makes more sense since this other world from Plato cannot be seen. Also even the minutest objects have a meaning such as atoms which are smaller than the eye can see and yet they have a
Aristotle 's great-souled man is not only an inaccurate depiction of greatness of soul, honour, perfect virtue and human excellence, but also a hypocritical, short-tempered and insensitive human being. Aristotle describes the great-souled man as being the ultimate person but as Fetter points out in Aristotle’s Great-Souled Man: The Limited Perfection of the Ethical Virtues, we see that there are many flaws in his account. This article looks at the contradictory statements being made about Aristotle’s great-souled man by loyal readers of his works, other philosophers and metaphysicians before Aristotle’s time who seem to have a sense for the worth of honour. We see that nearly all of Aristotle’s statements regarding the great-souled man can
Aristotle’s strong belief in logic led his argument in the principle of reasoning and the theory of knowledge. Aristotle believed that humans were born with a blank slate, having minds with no knowledge about anything. He was certain that knowledge is a process that it is acquired over an extended period of time and is not something that humans are born with or can achieve instantaneously. He viewed the human body as a knowledge-seeking tool purposefully made to aid in learning. Aristotle was the forefather in naturalist philosophy; he believed that knowledge was acquired through observation and interaction. He believed in acquiring knowledge through our senses, which is called perception. After perception, one must then be able to retain that knowledge through memory. One must experience those perceptions for oneself in conjunction with memory, the result of which is knowledge. To Aristotle, knowledge was having the ability to understand the essence and universal form of things. Aristotle wanted a way to protect against critics doubt...
Aristotle is regarded by many as one of the most important thinkers of the ancient era. Although many of his theories regarding the physics of the natural world were later disproved by Galileo, Aristotle nevertheless offered the world at that time a relevant and consistent explanation of physics of impressive breadth and explanatory ability. Many of his theories endured for up to 1200 years, and helped to form the basis of the midieval christian perspective of the natural world. Much of his physics, when combined with Ptolemy's mathematical model of planetary motions, was used by midieval thinkers to describe the behavior of the cosmos.
Through Aristotle’s specific definition of a tragic hero, it can be concluded that Oedipus is a tragic hero. Oedipus The King was written by a well-known tragic dramatist named Sophocles. This story is considered to be one of the greatest tragedies of all time. In fact, the Marjorie Barstow of the Classical Weekly says that it “fulfills the function of a tragedy, and arouses fear and pity in the highest degree” (Barstow). It is also very controversial because of the relationship that Oedipus has with his mother, although it was unknown at the time that they were related. The qualifications of a tragic hero, according to Aristotle, include coming from a royal family and falling from power due to actions that only the protagonist can take responsibility for. The main character must also have a tragic flaw, which is defined as a “weakness in character” (Gioia). There have been many protagonists in other plays that represent a tragic hero, but none exemplify Aristotle’s tragic hero traits quite as well as Oedipus does because of many reasons including his royal history, his tragic flaw, his hamartia, and his his fall from power.
As a second language learner I have never expected myself to be a perfect writer throughout the semester. Even If English was my first language still, I would not be a perfect writer. It is not about first or second language, it is about how well I understand the learning objectives. Then organizing and writing with my own ideas and putting them in my paper. I am going to be honest, I am not good at English subject and English subject is my strongest weakness than the other subjects. In this paper I will discuss and analyze my own writing, reflecting on the ways that my writing has improved throughout the semester.
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...
...Aristotle’s conclusion relates human good, activity of soul and excellence. It is this expression of virtue through action that allows happiness to be obtained. Such dependence on virtue sets the scene for Aristotle to examine virtue more closely. He will elaborate on the two parts of reasoning well (virtue). The first part of reasoning well is having the right desires to aim oneself at the right good and not just the apparent good. The second part of reasoning well is knowing how to get to this proper desire. This will be further elaborated in book two where Aristotle will explore what it means to reason well and what is means to be virtuous.
Therefore, many of the philosophers disagreed with each other and came up with very different answers for the same concepts. Plato also did not know the answers to all of the questions that arose in the pre-Socratic era. Plato decided to look back on the pre-Socratics era in particular at the philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. He agreed with Heraclitus who believed our world is constantly changing and with Parmenides who believed that the real world is not the same as the world of our experience. Plato chose to look at materialism and also his theory of Forms in a two-world setting in order to attempt to answer the questions of the universe. The two worlds Plato is talking about are: a world that is in constant flux (the world we live in) and a world that is ever-changing (the real world, otherwise known as Forms). Plato’s Forms distinguishes things that are real from things in our mind that we perceive as real. Plato also made the argument that reality is different than our worldly experience. Plato believed that material objects can imitate the forms because they have order, however, Aristotle’s disagreed. However, Aristotle thought that Plato’s concept of “participation” didn’t make sense. Aristotle believed that the world we live in is our reality and he argued that Plato’s idea of forms
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.
For Descartes, these are mind and body, and for Plato they are body and soul. Aristotle, in contrast, believes in a singular being where both body and soul are connected. For myself, a Christian who believes in the existence of a life after death, Aristotle 's theory creates an obvious negation. While I could agree with the levels of the soul argument, I cannot agree with the body and soul being one and the same for the simple reason that I do not believe that when the body dies, everything dies. I believe something is left over. What that something is, where it goes and what its purpose is, I may not know for certain, but to believe otherwise would not create a better life for me. Believing the soul lives on beyond the body creates an inner desire to seek morality and goodness, and it is in that endeavor that one creates a “better” life. Similarly, it is intuition that leads me to reject Descartes ' argument because my best judgment would tell me not to believe that everything I know, all that I sense, is a figment of my mind. I cannot know if such a thing is true or false, but far too many questions are raised by such an explanation. For myself, neither Aristotle nor Descartes provide an adequate understanding into the nature of the
According to Plato, his Theory of Forms states perfection only lives in the realm of thought. There only exists one of every ideal and the rest is just a copy. This one creation is called a form, the most flawless representation of an idea. In the physical world everything is a copy of these forms and all copies are imperfect. Plato believed in two worlds; the intelligible world and the illusionistic world. The intelligible world is where everything is unchanging and eternal. We can only grasp the intelligible world with our mind. It is the world of ideas and not senses. A place where there are perfect forms of the things we know on Earth. According to Plato everything in the world we live in is an illusion. All objects are only shadows of their true forms. His theory further states every group of objects that have the same defying properties must have an ideal form. For example, in the class of wine glasses there must be one in particular that is the ideal wine glass. All others would fall under this ideal form.
Aristotle goes further by saying that not only is the first step to determine if a thing is real, but to determine its substance (Moore and Bruder, n.d., 63). According to Moore and Bruden, substance has a double meaning. Substance is not only referring to the individual thing but also how it compares to other things (Moore and Bruder, n.d., 63). Aristotle did not stop there and mentions how ten different categories are used to describe and view things (Moore and Bruder, n.d., 64). These categories are quantity, quality, relationships, place, time, posture, constitution, passivity, and activity. All of these categories are great and help really describe and characterize a thing or object. Also, these categories show that we are very curious human beings and it takes categories like these to really satisfy our craving of what something is.
Aristotle uses his matter/form distinction to answer the question “What is soul?” and explains through his hylomorphic composition (matter, form, the compound of matter and form) to show that the body requires the soul and vice versa. He believes that compounds which are alive, are things that have souls and it is their souls that make them living things. In this essay, I will present Aristotle’s argument of the soul and whether he is successful in arguing for the mutual dependance of soul and body.
Throughout this semester in philosophy I’ve come to realize one thing for sure, that one thing being that philosophy doesn’t not easily come defined. While reading all the works of Plato one comes to the realization that philosophy as an activity is like trying to see both sides of a door at the same time. There are many different types of doors and way to look at all of them. There are so many different types of ways to define philosophy.
Aristotle argued and disagreed with Plato’s views of the self and soul being a separate from the body. Aristotle’s view is that all humans have a soul, yet they cannot be separate from the body in which they reside. To him, there are four sections of the soul; the desiderative and vegetative parts on the irrational side are used to help one find what they are needing and the calculative and scientific parts on the rational side are