Philosophy: Great Works of Western Philosophy - Assignment Example

Philosophy - Great Works of Western Philosophy 2 Part I: Q1: What is the epistemological paradox confronted by Socrates in the Meno? How does Socrates resolve the paradox? Plato’s Meno is a dialogue between a young man Meno and the great philosopher Socrates. The dialogue starts with Meno and Socrates engaged in a discussion about the nature of virtue. The discussion involves argumentation on the definition of virtue, whether virtue can be taught or acquired by practice, or by other means. In order to explain the nature of virtue, Socrates uses some epistemological themes. The principal paradox treated in Meno is a dilemma about what virtue is. Meno asks Socrates the fundamental dilemma of mankind - how can a person look for something when he has no knowledge of what it is? Meno posits his dilemma by asking Socrates how it is possible for him to begin an inquiry into the nature of virtue when he does not have the knowledge of a proper definition of virtue. This is known as Meno’s paradox. Socrates’ response to this sophistical paradox reveals yet another topic for discussion. Socrates suggests that knowledge is never acquired, it is only recollected. Socrates resolves Meno’s paradox by explaining his famous theory of Recollection. He suggests that the human soul is immortal and that it knows everything that exists. As the soul is reborn from a previous life, it knows everything that existed in the previous world as well. Therefore, acquisition of knowledge is a process of remembering whatever has been learned in the past. The immortal soul knows all things that exist. Therefore, it is not surprising for a man to remember everything about what virtue is. As the soul lives beyond the life of the body, it learns all the things even from its previous life. Socrates’ theory further suggests that learning is recollection. Because whatever men learn in the past lives, it can be recollected easily as the soul never dies. Therefore, the true knowledge of things can be recollected as the soul carries the knowledge of all things that existed in the previous world. It is only the human body that is subject to physical death, not the soul. The soul exists beyond the life of the body and collects knowledge of all things, which can be recollected. Q2: How does the Platonic doctrine of recollection inform Socrates argument, in the Phaedo, that the soul can exist apart from the body? Plato’s Phaedo details the final days of the great philosopher Socrates. This is a dialogue between Socrates and his student Phaedo, narrated from the latter’s perspective. Here Socrates discusses the nature of the afterlife along with other relevant arguments including the immortality of the soul and the nature of recollection. As the argument proceeds, a man recollects things he must have known at some previous time. Socrates offers four arguments to explain the immortality of the soul. The cyclical argument explains that the soul is imperishable. As the body is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite. The theory of recollection explains that we recollect things due to the prior knowledge carried by the soul from before birth. The affinity argument explains that the soul is immortal and the body mortal. The argument from form of life explains that all things participating in Forms including the soul never perish. The doctrine of recollection suggests that all learning is a matter of recollecting what we already know. This is possible due to the immortality of the soul. The soul carries knowledge of things from our previous lives, which we tend to forget at birth. However, the forgotten knowledge can be recovered by recollecting the knowledge through proper questioning. The very act of recollection of the knowledge forgotten at birth is a sound testimony to the fact that our soul existed even before we were born. As the soul is immortal, the knowledge it gathers remains with us prior to our birth. But we forget it at birth, which can be recovered again by recollection. The main implication of Socrates’ doctrine of recollection, thus, maintains that the soul exists prior to birth, which further means that the life of the soul extends beyond the life of the body. Q3: In Metaphysics A, Aristotle maintains that universal first principles are "the hardest for men to know" and yet "[the] most knowable". Explain how these apparently conflicting descriptions can be reconciled? Aristotle’s Metaphysics is one of the greatest philosophical works by the author and the first major work of the branch of philosophy by the same name. The work includes discussion of a number of Aristotelian ideas addressing the primary philosophical topics. The metaphysical treatises of Aristotle are referred to different books named by Greek letters such as Alpha or A (Book 1), little alpha or  (Book 2), Beta or B (Book 3), and so on. Metaphysics A is the first among the Aristotelian treatises. It outlines the Aristotelian notion of ‘first philosophy’, which is a knowledge of the first principles or causes of things. Aristotle suggests that the thorough knowledge of first causes and principles makes wise men eligible to command rather than to obey. The knowledge of the causes and principles is what Aristotle terms as ‘Wisdom’. As Aristotle argues, the knowledge of the most universal things is the hardest for men to know, yet this is what is most knowable. The arguments are conflicting in their descriptions, but Aristotle explains it with élan. He distinguishes between things that are ‘better known to us’ and those that are ‘better known in themselves’. Aristotle argues that the principles and causes studied by ‘first philosophy’ are better known in themselves. It is the curiosity and inquisitiveness of human nature that makes us eager to know more about the most true knowledge. It is through the first principles and causes that all other things come to be known. Therefore, these principles and causes are the most knowable. However, acquiring the knowledge of these principles is hard for mankind. The appearance of something may differ from the true reality of that thing. Besides, it is determined by the opinions and attitudes of the observers resulting in contradictory views. Due to such differences, it is hard for men to come to a common conception of things. Therefore, the true knowledge of things is hard to acquire. The two statements about first principles are contradictory, but they are closely related to each other, argues Aristotle. Part II: Plato and Aristotle Introduction: Plato and Aristotle are considered as two of the most significant philosophers of all time, whose philosophical ideologies are counted among the most relevant topics to study under the branch of philosophy. Plato’s Theory of Forms is a philosophical testimony to understand the true meaning of knowledge as the most fundamental kind of reality. Whereas Aristotle’s Substance Theory is a core concept of ontology and metaphysics. This paper addresses and briefly elaborates the aspects of these two theories in order to find out whether they correlate or contradict each other. Theory of Forms by Plato: The Theory of Forms is argued in detail by Plato in his Phaedo. According to the theory, Forms are the only true entities of study providing us with genuine knowledge. As Plato argues, there is a conspicuous difference between forms or appearances of things and Forms or the fundamental basis of things. Form or appearance of the thing is the imitative representation of the real Form or essence of that thing. This further means that the Form or essence exists independently of concrete objects. Essences are static entities that are the cause of all things in the world. Appearances or outward forms of things are subject to destruction and physical death. But the essence never perishes, it is eternal and unchanging. Being the true basis of reality, Forms or essences are distinctly separate from our world, that is, the world of substance. Plato believes that the definition of wisdom can be attained from our ability to grasp the knowledge of Forms with our own mind. Aristotle’s Substance Theory: Aristotle’s Substance Theory is a significant representation of knowledge of the fundamental reality of things. The theory argues that the substance of something is distinct from its properties. It is the substance of something that makes it what it remains of itself. Substance is the permanent property of an object without which it does not contain what it has. The ontological explanation of substance reveals the true identity of things. In order to formulate the basis of his theory, Aristotle started with Plato’s philosophical views. As the theory suggests, the concept of reality of objects depends upon all forms of attributes found in the objects. Aristotle’s theory formulates strong argumentation to object Plato’s view that real forms are eternal and unchanging while unreal things are changing constantly. Aristotle’s take on this view strongly argues that substance is a permanent property addressing both the real and non-real entities of things. Conclusion: Plato’s Theory of Forms reveals two different argumentations that sound contradictory to each other. The theory, on one hand, proposes that the real nature of things or the essence is eternal and unchangeable. However, the world around us is constantly changing. What Aristotle’s Substance Theory represents is an attempt to reconcile the two contradictory world views in the form of a strong critique of Plato’s Theory of Forms. The Aristotelian criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms can be best described as the expansion of the knowledge of fundamental reality of the world. Plato considered the non-real existing things as substance, and suggested that only substance has Form, thus avoiding the Forms of the real existing things. Aristotle further took this argumentation ahead by drawing the line between Form and non-Form, and bridging them together with his ideology of substance being the real basis of things. Both philosophers agree that there are various substances of different objects, addressing to different attributes and modes of things. To conclude, Aristotle’s Substance Theory can be considered as an improvement of Plato’s Theory of Forms, thus unveiling the true knowledge of things and the world. Reference: Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Read More