Classics of Western Philosophy - Term Paper Example

If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed.  Download the original attachment ics of western philosophy Meno had saidthat there is no purpose in searching on man’s part either for what he knows or for what he doesn’t know because if he knows about his search there is no purpose in searching it again and if he doesn’t know what he is searching he will not anything worth in his search. Therefore according to Meno there is no purpose in the dialectical search. Socrates had introduced a recollection in order to explain how it is necessary to pursue the dialectic search. But Socrates is of a different opinion he had said that it is necessary for a learner to know about the object which he doesn’t know and sometimes he needs the assistance of the dialectical search to bring into mind the object about which he already knows. The dialectical search according to Socrates guides our minds or souls or eyes towards virtue removing all kinds of distractions and incorrect alternatives from our ways. Meno’s challenge is more like a diversion which Socrates had refuted well with his logical arguments. Socrates tried to explain how it is important to know of something which we already know because that helps us to discover the truth. Socrates is of the opinion that if we do not get weary of the search it will be possible on our parts to remember well what the soul has already learnt. Thus we see that Socrates had refuted the epistemological paradox presented by Meno in a proper manner by explaining well the need of the dialectical query as the dialectical search helps man to become more knowledgeable and it also helps man to acquire the truths of objects.   2. Plato’s Phaedo is a conversation between Phaedo, Cebes and Simmias through which they want to explore the reasons as to why death should not be feared. They basically delve on the explanation provided by Socrates as to why death should not be feared by a true philosopher. Plato based his belief on the explanation provided by Socrates which says that as the soul is immortal and as it is the origin of all our intellect death should never be feared by a true philosopher because pursuing philosophy is nothing more than arriving near the penultimate truth that is death. According to Socrates true philosophy can only be pursued when the desires of the body are denied because they pose as distractions to any kind of intellectual pursuit. Plato through Socrates says that any information which we receive through our senses has to be constantly validated by our intellect. Secondly Socrates has said that whatever an individual experiences like inaccurate informations, temptations and desires prevent a philosopher to acquire true knowledge. Thirdly he has said that that all the functions of the body if taken as distractions are basically taking all happiness and contentment of the body as annoyance. Plato through Socrates goes on to say that the soul is immortal because it is through the soul we pursue the ultimate knowledge and the soul is not dependent on the body for its existence. He also says that a philosopher in order to pursue the true knowledge should disregard the sensory distractions of the body and fully depend on the soul which is the true form for acquiring the truth. Through Socrates Plato had said that two opposites cannot exist together they have to be separate from each other just as fire cannot exist in cold, it ceases to exist. Similarly soul which is life itself cannot exist in its opposite that is in dying of the body, therefore the soul is essentially separate from the existence of the body. 3. All human beings have the desire to know and that is why we use our sensory organs to know more about our surroundings. Merely knowing the fact is not knowledge enough. True wisdom means knowledge of the causes as well as the theory of a certain thing fact or a happening. We know that one who knows everything about the universe has the highest claim on all other things because he has knowledge which no-one else has. Those who do not have such knowledge should follow the orders of the wise man and not he theirs. It is thought that a knowledge of such a science is divine and beyond the capacity of human access. This supreme science was considered the divine in the sense that it is either knowledge possessed by the gods or it is knowledge of things which are divine and everything in this world is divine. Therefore in this sense we all have knowledge about the divinity and the fact the all the world is divine. Taking cue from such an explanation by Aristotle we can say that the knowledge of the supreme science which was considered beyond the capacity of human beings is in fact the most knowable one because we all experience divinity very closely. Knowing the causes is considered wisdom hence we can say that all men are within the realm of wisdom because all men are aware of the phenomena that this world is the manifestation of the divinity. Thus Aristotle in Metaphysics A had clearly explained that knowledge which seems beyond the human capacity is in fact the most knowable form of knowledge.   Part 2: Plato believed that the Ideas, forms of things all are self-existent they are not dependent on ever changing objects of their senses. Aristotle on the other hand said that no universals are over and above the existence of the individuals and cannot exist separate from each other. Aristotle said that universals are a reality when they exist as individuals. This conflict of view between Aristotle and Plato was an origin of confusion among philosophers of the later age. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle want to focus on the fact things remained the same as they originated but they may undergo a number of changes. Therefore they essentially focused on the being of things. According to Plato, substance is basically the foundational and fundamental entities of the reality and without substance no object is capable of existence. For Plato forms are real substance as because all entities derive their existence from forms. Forms Plato says are equal to universal concepts and ideas because it males the entire phenomenal world intelligible. Forms on the other hand are essence for Aristotle and he rightly differentiated forms from concrete and particular entities. Plato was of the opinion that beings of the world do not change and they eternally remain what they were. In fact Plato wanted to say that beings or substance of the universe are metaphysical entities. Thus we can understand that Plato was more concerned with the metaphysics of substances. Aristotle has said that substances should be separate contrasting the view of Plato. The basic rejection of Aristotle towards Plato’s theory was separation of Forms. Aristotle says that though definition is necessary for being a substance yet separation is also equally important for being a substance. Aristotle’s criticism is justified here in the sense that being a substance is being separate. For Plato on the other hand substantiality does not issue from separation. According to Aristotle substance occupied the central position. The knowledge of substance was necessary before the knowledge of anything else and the existence of substance was also of most importance before the existence of any other thing. Not only in terms of existence and knowledge the existence of substance was important with respect to all other things in the word. Plato had taken the more abstract route in realizing philosophy on the other hand Aristotle took a route which was more concrete, direct and natural in nature. Aristotle has linked the secondary substance of being to the non-substance categories. He says the most closest to the definitions of substances are the perceptible ones but there are others as well but he does not comment about them as such. He has treated individual substances as subjects of predication. He characterizes the qualities of the individual substances as unanalyzable atoms. According to him a substance must be a determinate individual that is capable of existing on its own. In my opinion Aristotle’s philosophy on substance is a more pragmatic approach as it deals with more humane issues. It sees the world with more reality and does not treat the existence of man as a utopia. On the other hand Plato has seen the world as more of a utopia and he concentrates on achieving of things which is not very real in approach. The idea of substance of Plato emphasizes on the forms and tries to relate it to things which are not practically possible on the other hand Aristotle’s idea of substance is more far-reaching. It is an explanation to which the later philosophers have been able to relate.        References 1. Cahn Steven, “Classics of Western Philosophy”, Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, 2002. Read More