Critical Thinking: Nietzsches Philosophy and Aristotles Argument - Assignment Example

Assignment Part A: Aristotle’s argument is that in the same medium, bodies of different weights travel with speeds that are proportional to their weights, i.e., a heavier body is likely to travel faster than a slower body. Applying a reasoned argument, which can be diagrammatically represented as follows: Suppose u 1 U 2 1. SUPPOSE a heavier body travels faster than a lighter body in a particular medium, assuming that their motion depends upon gravity and that they have the same shape It would THEN follow that 2. If we take two bodies of different weights whose natural speeds in a particular medium are different and release them in different mediums, for example, water and air; the motion of the two bodies would still be dependent upon gravity From this, it would also follow that: 3. if it is true that the motion of the bodies is dependent upon gravity and the two bodies are moving through different mediums of water and air, then the heavier body would also continue to move faster through water and air BUT 4. Taking into account the resistance offered up by the medium in which the object is travelling due to density and the force of gravity, since motion is dependent upon gravity; water would offer up a higher resistance because of its higher density Therefore, it follows from (3) and (4) that Since motion is dependent upon gravity and a body moves through different mediums of different densities in a manner proportional to its weight; then any body which falls faster than another body through air should also be able to fall faster through water Therefore, by conditionalisation Any body that falls through air, whether faster or slower, should also fall through water. As may be noted from the above argument, this presents a case scenario of reduction ad absurdum, because the initial supposition from which the argument is derived is that any body that moves in a particular medium would have its movement conditioned by the force of gravity. Thus, it would fall faster or slower depending upon the resistance offered by that medium. Applying this supposition however, would also lead to a conclusion that since motion is dependent upon the weight of the body, it would not only move faster or slower depending upon the resistance offered by the medium, but would move through any medium. If it can be argued that a body moves through water, then it must also move through air. In reality however, this may not necessarily be true in every instance. For example, it could be argued that cork would move through air fairly quickly because of the force of gravity and the lower levels of resistance offered by the air. In so far as the force of gravity is concerned, it acts upon every object; therefore nay body that is falling would be subject to the force of gravity and should respond accordingly in terms of its movement being faster or slower but it should move through the medium in question. While it is no doubt true that cork moves through the air and will fall if dropped in air, this may not be the case if it is dropped in water. Cork would float in water due to the resistance offered up by the medium of water, hence it cannot be contended that the body (the piece of cork) would move through every medium. Applying the initial supposition that a body travels faster or lighter in a particular medium depending upon the force of gravity works out to a conclusion that the body that falls through one medium should also fall through another; hence if a body falls through air, it should also fall through water. This conclusion works out to be false in reality, hence the only justification that can be offered is that the initial supposition that was assumed is not necessarily true. Aristotle’s thesis states that a heavier body would move faster through a medium than a lighter object would. Applying the supposition that was laid out previously, it could be assumed that a heavier body moves faster through a medium than a lighter body would. In this case, another assumption that would need to be made is that if the object in question is cork, it would move faster through different mediums if it was heavier. As a result, a piece of cork which was heavier would fall through air quicker than a lighter one. Applying the conclusion that was derived from the earlier argument, any body that moves through air should also move through another medium. Hence, since the heavier piece of cork moves faster through the air than a lighter piece, it should also move faster through water as compared to a lighter piece of cork. The argument could be phrased as follows: SUPPOSE: (R) heavier objects move faster through a particular medium with their medium being influenced by the force of gravity THEN if a piece of cork is heavier, it will move through air because it is influenced by the force of gravity and since the force of gravity also exists in water, the piece of cork should move faster through water as well. BUT this assumption is false, because cork does NOT move through water, because cork tends to float on water. As a result, the initial supposition is untrue, but it cannot be totally refuted, because it could be argued that a heavier piece of cork will tend to move faster through a medium as compared to a lighter piece of the object. Aristotle’s thesis is essentially concerned with the weight of an object, his contention is that heavier objects tend to move faster. If the movement of objects is examined in relation to the force of gravity, then there is a greater mass the heavier object has, as a result of which there will be a higher force of gravity exerted on it and the object will tend to move faster. While an object that moves through one medium will not necessarily move through every medium because in reality, the resistance offered up by that medium may be different; nevertheless when the force of gravity is taken into account, heavier objects will tend of fall faster because of a greater force of gravity being exerted on them. As a result, the initial supposition of Aristotle’s thesis may be TRUE when the force of gravity is taken into account. On this basis, it could be contended that Aristotle’s thesis may be true to some extent. The argument offered by Aristotle about heavier objects leads to the assumption that if a heavier object is likely to move faster through a medium, any other object that is heavier will also respond in the same manner. But this will depend upon the resistance offered by the medium as well. A piece of cork may fall faster in air due to the force of gravity, however if it is dropped in water, it is unlikely to move through it whether it is large or small, because cork will tend to float on the surface of water rather than to move through it. Moreover, Galileo’s theory about the falling of objects clarifies that the principle of falling due to gravity would apply in the case of individual bodies, but a different case scenario could be presented when two objects are dropped together, for instance, a stone and a sack. In some instances, the presence of another object may in reality, slow down the movement of an object rather than speed it up. In other instances, an object that travels through one medium may not necessarily travel through another. Part II: One of the fundamental aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy is his attack on morality, which according to him is an unrealistic depiction of human aspirations and codes of conduct. Nietzsche is of the view that morality in man is actually an aspect that weakens him and prevents him from aspiring to and reaching his full potential as a highest form of human being.(www.plato.stanford.edu). Nietzsche’s criticisms of morality are not specifically directed at religion or philosophy or specific social practices; rather he seeks to re-evaluate existing moral values within a much broader context and in a much broader sense, in order to describe a much higher state of being that humans should aspire to. The passage on “thus spake Zarathustra” also depicts a similar criticism of morality, which is not specifically directed at a particular religion or social group. The passage speaks of the “foolishness of those who pity”. At the outset, it may be noted that pity is a quality that arises out of mercy and compassion for another human being that is suffering. It leads to action on the part of a human being on the grounds of doing good to another human being and being a moral person. But according to the passage, this is “foolish” and is the cause of suffering rather than alleviating it. Therefore, the passage appears to offer a direct criticism of pity which is a good moral value. Nietzsche also criticises morality in a similar way; he contends that such morality is circumscribed by society or by certain religious groups. The underlying objective behind such moral values is to benefit and favour the interests of certain groups of people at the expense of other people. For instance, it could be argued that the moral injunction to take pity on suffering people across the globe is often one of the ways by which certain religious groups, example churches, seek to extract money from gullible parishioners to pour into their own pockets. It may also be argued that a person who pities another and spends his or her time and effort in helping another is only detracting from the time and effort he could put into the development of his own self and being. Nietzsche is therefore likely to condemn such morality on the grounds that it embraces norms which harm the “highest man” while benefitting the “lowest man”. (www.plato.stanford.edu). This is the normative component of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Similarly, the passage from Zarathustra also states that God is dead; and his love and pity for human beings has killed him. This further conforms to Nietzsche’s agnostic philosophy about the non existence of God. The passage suggests that (a) God is dead, hence there is no God and (b) God died because he was weakened by moral values such as love and pity. In this way, the passage not only corroborates Nietzsche’s condemnation of morality but also denies the existence of a God, because it contends that God is dead. By symbolically stating that God is dead, the passage appears to suggest that the highest that a man could aspire to, i.e, to be divine and attain the very heights and power of God, may also be compromised when yielding to morality. In other words, God himself has yielded to morality and this has weakened him so much that he has descended from a supreme high position into death. Thus the passage reflects the essence of Nietzsche’s beliefs that the pursuit of morality and moral values is detrimental to man because it prevents him from attaining to the heights to which he is capable of reaching in terms of his own self development. The passage also illustrates Nietzsche’s mode of critical thinking. At the outset, Nietzsche did not regard science as the objective truth which needs to be accepted as such by everyone.(Babich and Cohen, 20) Nietzsche’s views are derived largely out of his ability to question anything and everything and refuse to accept anything as a given. His refusal to accept science as objective truth in itself demonstrates that he also questioned science itself. Therefore, his questioning of morality which is largely a composite collection of beliefs and value systems is also derived from his ability to view things from a fresh perspective of questioning everything, including accepted beliefs and values. The passage by Zarathrusta also depicts the same phenomenon. The passage follows a definite trajectory of thought, it moves from the foolishness of those who pity to their failure to attain to the heights that they are capable of. The highest level of attainment is then laid out as reaching God and then the passage lays out something that would be unthinkable in a normal context – God in a Hell. God and Hell do not go together, but the passage, in true Nietzschian tradition does not hesitate to think the unthinkable and question whether God and heaven are indeed so high that they could never descend into Hell. The passage follows a logical sequence of thought as it starts from the foolishness of pity and then spells out how it undermines love and makes an individual weak. So much so that God himself is weakened by it and descends into Hell and even dies because of the pity and love he feels for his children and the morality he feels. The passage thereby depicts a similar trend of thought to that of Nietzsche – (a) it does not accept anything at face value (b) it questions everything and does not accept anything as objective truth (c) it thinks the unthinkable and does not hesitate to follow logical sequences of thought that might infringe on the perceived and upheld notions of morality and good. Thereby, it depicts the same tradition of Nietzsche in disregarding certain mores, traditions, beliefs and ways of thinking because of the underlying belief that such norms and beliefs are conditioned by certain groups for their own interests and not necessarily for the edification of man and to transform him into a higher human being. References: Babich, Babette E and Cohen, Robert Sonne, 1999. “Nietzsche and the sciences: Nietzsche, theory of knowledge and critical thinking”, Springer. Nietzsche’s moral and political philosophy”, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#1 Read More