Comparison of Philosophers - Essay Example

Comparison of Philosophers Philosophy is a view of existence, of man, and man's relationship to existence. If you understand that, then you also understand why philosophy is not irrelevant to the "common man". Everyone has a philosophy - a perspective of the world, themselves, and their relationship to reality. The Goal Of Philosophy Aristotle the goal of philosophy is that it since it is science of the universal essence of that which is real or actual, in things, its goal is to "lead, in its logical consequences to reality of objects whether it is real or actual, Aristotle believed reality has a set of series known as a graded series of realities, each and every step in the series enlightening more and more those common relationships which make it an object of accurate knowledge. At the closing stages of the series, he said, the objects present no longer relative, but absolute. This Goal Should Be Practiced Or Pursued Aristotle believed philosophy to have an "ennobling effect on the philosopher, such that he or she is brought as close as possible to divine state." As you know, the common belief now days are that philosophy will provide contentment, or some kind of consolation because of a particular broadening of the mind. For a start too many philosophers' personalities are so different, yet they have fundamentally the same knowledge, which clearly means philosophical knowledge does not make for a particular reaction. A lot of those who do have the stereotypical personality trait associated with being a philosopher have had it ever before they started philosophy, which is equally well known. You often hear people saying it is particular Benefits Or Value The benefit of this gaol can only be known through the texts that Aristotle wrote, Note in Book 1 chapter 1 how Aristotle carefully distinguishes between the man of experience and the man of wisdom. Wisdom for Aristotle, aims at knowledge for its own sake, not for the sake of producing anything (e.g. health, material goods, etc.). And since Metaphysics is the science, which seeks after knowledge for its own sake, metaphysics is often referred to as the "first philosophy." "Clearly then, Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes (John p 45)." For Aristotle, is the one who desires knowledge regarding the ultimate cause and nature of reality... of existence And for no other reason than knowledge, wisdom, and therefore Metaphysics, is the sort of knowledge that deals with causes and principles of things. Knowledge becomes the one of the primary basic human goods that they pursue. What do you think of 'choice' as being that which first comes to play in a life We make choices and 'prioritize' which goods we wish to pursue. Aristotle states that the philosopher's subject (which is existing things qua existing) must have a principle which is not a theory or hypothesis. And it is the philosopher's job to know what it is. The principle is commonly known today as: The Principle of Non-Contradiction. Indeed, Aristotle calls this principle the most certain of all principles (i.e. of any knowledge whatsoever). Namely, "the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and the same respect.' And this principle Aristotle believes is the point of departure for all further knowledge. This principle, of course, has been debated over since then. Aristotle's Book IV demonstrating this "most certain of all the principles." Expressed in Aristotle's language, the law reads: "It is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to belong to the same thing in the same relation." This means two things. 1) It is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time, and in respect to the same thing. For example, a man is either alive or dead. He cannot be halfway between life and death, and he cannot be both dead and alive at the same time. 2) It is impossible for a substance to be a particular something and to be its opposite at the same time and in the same respect. For example, something is either a man or it is not a man. It cannot be both man and not-man at the same time, in the same respect. A man is a man and nothing else. He is not a walking corpse or a matured embryo. He once was an embryo, and he may become a corpse, but when he is a man, he can only be a man. Some people might argue that they can think that a man is both dead and alive at the same time. Aristotle says this is impossible. If you think this, then you are holding two contrary opinions simultaneously, and this you cannot do. You may change your mind the next instant, but while you are thinking one thing, you cannot think it's opposite. You may think of a man being dead and alive at the same time. But you cannot at the same time think and not think a particular thought, such as, "A man is (Simon p10)." Identifying the four laws of Aristotelian logic: 1 the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A), the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law o f rational inference from what is known to what is unknown.2 Aristotle regarded it [logic] as a preliminary study to all branches of knowledge calling it an instrument (organon) of study."3 And Aristotle's logic was "not a substantive part of philosophy but ancillary to all parts."4 Aristotle did not generally use the term "logic." He preferred the term "analytics." Prior Analytics is the title of his major work on deductive logic and Posterior Analytics is the title of his major work on induction. At the heart of Aristotle's logic was the syllogism. His syllogism was a logical deduction defined in Prior Analytics as: [A] discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. How To Acquire The Goals Once we admit that real knowledge does exist, our next question will be: How can it be acquired Aristotle answered the question by stating that actual knowledge can be gained just through, the senses not from these senses. The logical faculty discerns the main beliefs of things in the objects of the senses, as well as knowledge is the product of this concept. There are both external as well as internal senses, according to Aristotle. Memory and imagination are clearly defined by Aristotle as internal senses, as is as well the "sense" of self-consciousness. This last sense, he said, is found in the heart. There is no room in Aristotle's philosophy for the doctrine of innate ideas. Regarding the fact that there is nothing in the mind which is not at a first an image gained via the senses, he taught that mind itself is just the potential power to think. All objects of thought are sensuous. Aristotle saw his logical deduction as a tool, a first kind of wisdom that guided all kinds of investigations of truth. He wrote, Natural science also is a kind of wisdom, but it is not the first kind. --And the attempts of some who discuss the terms, on which truth should be accepted, are due to a want of training in logic. Evidently then the philosopher, who is studying the nature of all substance, must inquire also into the principles of deduction Aristotle also saw his first kind of wisdom, as unaquired and therefore innate in humans and other animals. Those animals with memories were able then to do induction. For Aristotle, universals were self-evident. Increased empirical knowledge did not produce basic perceptions (logic). The universal principle is known actually (deduction) and the particular case (induction or demonstration) is known potentially. (ontruth.com/aristotle.html) He wrote, And this [deduction] evidently belongs to all animals; for they have a connate discriminatory capacity, which is called perception, in some animals retention of the percept comes about and from experience, or from the whole universal that has come to rest in the soul there comes a principle of skill and of understanding [induction, demonstration]. Where as According to Socrates, the right practice of philosophy is practicing for death and dying, and only this way can the soul be still exist with reason. Socrates bases his logic on the reasoning that death is the separation of the soul from the body. To be prepared for this occurrence, the person must be ready to accept the fact soul would still be alive after the death of humans. Goal Of Philosophical Activity Socrates' primary goal of philosophical was to require people to think. Certainly, his most famous statement ever was that the "unexamined life was not worth living (Moore p 3)." He also was determined that his words be conveyed on a level by which people could better understand their own motives and thoughts and, thus, allow them to be much more aware of why they made certain decisions or took specific actions. The "apprehension and appreciation" of formal reality is what makes life worth living, according to Socrates. Of equal importance is the fact that it also makes one moral. Therefore, it seems clear that in order to fully cultivate the most meaningful life, one must be willing to look inward toward the reality of one's own life and beliefs in order to understand what it is to be fully alive. Without that willingness to "examine" one's own life, a person is only partially alive Socrates in Phaedo later on in life when he was near to death said that , the right practice of philosophy and the goal of philosophical activity even thinking about each stage of death thus the goal is also practicing for death and dying, and only this way can the soul be still exist with reason. Socrates bases his logic on the reasoning that death is the separation of the soul from the body. To be prepared for this occurrence, the person must be ready to accept the fact soul would still be alive after the death of humans. This Goal Should Be Practiced Or Pursued The reason why this goal should be perused and the benefits of it can only be known through the discussion of Simmias, Cebes and Socrates. Thus I will explain both the benefits and reason to peruse this goal by the help of the above mentioned discussion After the explanation of soul's separation from the body; Cebes brings up a point that men are very prone to disbelief. For Cebes comment, Socrates counter with another question that weather or not the souls of the dead exist in the underworld. Socrates offers the theory that just like the dead in the underworld comes from the living, the living comes from the dead arriving back form the underworld. To strengthen the theory, Socrates gives quite a few arguments; moreover these arguments are his evidence as to why the belief that the soul is eternal and thus never dies is the legitimate one. he takes the instance of living which comes from the dead as well as vice versa and develops into other things that something can turn into something being from it's opposite. If this theory holds reality, then the soul has to exist for the point in time between the living to dead as well as dead to the living. For the living can only returns from the death if there is soul present .The philosophical discussion begins as Cebes brings up Socrates' Theory of Recollection, which claims that all learning is recollection. Simmias cannot quite remember the proof of that theory, and asks for an explanation. Socrates begins by pointing out that we can be reminded of one thing by being made conscious of another thing. For instance, if one sees an article of clothing that belongs to a beloved, one will immediately be reminded of the person whose clothing it is. Socrates introduces the Theory of Forms, making Simmias agree that there is such a thing as Equality itself - something that is independent of any particular case of equality such as equal sticks or equal stone. (Taylor etal p 23) Simmias and Cebes agree that Socrates has shown that the soul existed before birth, but they remain unconvinced that the soul coheres after death. Socrates remarks that this has already been proved, if we combine the Theory of Recollection with the Argument from Opposites. Benefits Of The Goal Thus the benefit in acquiring this goal would be that one would realize that the Theory of Recollection shows that the soul existed before birth, and the Argument from Opposites shows that it must have been born from out of death. Bearing in mind that the soul has to be re-born after it dies, Simmias and Cebes are forced to acknowledge that it must continue to exist after death. Acquiring the Goal The body is like a protective shelter for the soul and it's known to decay after death and the soul would leaves the body and lives eternally. Socrates realizes that and soul accumulates knowledge from the past and its part of our lives and it's not limited by the mortality. Therefore, to Socrates, who claims to be a philosopher, he learns to focus on the soul and not the body. Ultimately, the philosopher should stay away from the body because the body causes desires for foods, water, and more and therefore would distracts a person from attending to the soul. Socrates goes on to explain that it is not possible to find any truth with the body and its senses, as the body is constantly being deceived in one way or another by what the body perceives. Through only the reasoning, one look passes the body and can realize the reality. Reasoning is most accurate when it is not hindered by distractions arises by the body's needs and senses and it's it why we should try separate from them, just as death does, the body from the soul. To Socrates, this is the only way to be able to explore the concept of absolute justice, absolute beauty and goodness, which cannot be understood by any of the body's sense and must be approached through the reason. Conclusion To a great degree, the only or, at least, the primary conclusion that must be reached regarding philosophy is that it is a process of understanding what is and is not. How a person exists in the world is the result of what he or she understands and not a pre-determined set of rules imposed by other persons. Therefore, the goal of philosophy (if "goal" is the appropriate word to use) is understanding -- understanding one's self, one's being, and one's place in the universe. Work Cited C. C. W. Taylor , R. M. Hare , Jonathan Barnes , Keith Thomas ; Greek Philosophers: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle Oxford Paperbacks 2001 p 23 John Perry &Michael Bratman ; Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition 1998 p 45 MA: McGraw-Hill 2005 p 3 Moore, B. N., & Bruder, K. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas (6th ed.). Boston: ontruth.com/aristotle.html retrieved on 13 November 2007 Simon Blackburn ; Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy Oxford Paperbacks; New Ed edition 2001 p 10 its current lifetime is that he cannot come up with a better explanation for the very phenomena he uses as evidence. Read More