I believe that both philosophers have reasonable arguments on the matter of dualism. Aristotle wants people to know that if intelligence is not something that it material. He believes that if it were to be referred to as a material substance then that would take away from it the most important characteristics. However Plato agrees with this point, but he has his views to explain why. I would have to side with Aristotle because his
The first and most obvious place to look for Aristotle’s view on relativism is Metaphysics I’. Here, Aristotle is mostly concerned with the law of non-contradiction and those who deny it. He includes Protagoras with such thinkers based on his relativistic notions that x and not-x can both be true for different people. A consequence of the law of non-contradiction (Met I’3) is that, if x is contrary to not-x,
Explain what Aristotle meant by Final Cause: [25] Aristotle’s Final Cause is his theory that all objects have a fundamental reason or purpose for its existence. He questioned why material was the way it was and looked beyond its physicality to what was its purpose and why it exists in our material world. Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed in only the material world and opposed Plato’s world of the Forms. To him, the final cause was important as the material efficient and formal causes would be pointless without the end product. This is the final cause.
Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
Instead, he views rhetoric as the method of creating the truth without deception and creating truth with people’s own view. Rhetoric is an approach to truth – the method of approaching truth and the process of convincing and persuading someone’s opinion to one’s own idea of truth. This is considered as academic rhetoric. The rhetoric in Aristotle and Plato’s dialogue is to create some legitimate kind of truth that force human into truth, and to create truth in your view or the persuasion that argue to bring
Although the idea of social justice based in a social contract is mentioned in Plato's Republic and was known even earlier, the Republic's conception of individual justice is distinctively virtue ethical. To be sure, Plato understands individual justice on analogy with justice “writ large” in the state, but he views the state, or republic, as a kind of organism or beehive, and the justice of individuals is not thought of as primarily involving conformity to just institutions and laws. Rather, the just individual is someone whose soul is guided by a vision of the Good, someone in whom reason governs passion and ambition through such a vision. When, but only when, this is the case, is the soul harmonious, strong, beautiful, and healthy, and individual justice precisely consists in such a state of the soul. Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony.
Aristotle Dialectic Induction, example To show the basis of many similar instances that something is so And syllogism “to show that if some premises are true something else beyond them results from them because they are true Rhetoric Paradigm” similar cases And Enthymem Pathos (audience) Ethos (speaker) Logos (speech subject) Possible varieties of persuasion Subjects rhetorician talks about-things in the community “rhetoric masquerades to political science” Why is it so important, the differences between dialectic and rhetoric. ; the two run in tandem, use similar methods, their similarities do not suggest that rhetoric is not a sloppy derivitive of dialectic. Dialectic deals with induction: two kind of thinking induction or deductive: one simply gathers similar cases or examples, fills up a classification, suggests if done properly what is true with one classification will be true with theothers. Otherwise they wouldn’t be in the same category. 2nd is deduction: on the basis if” and “if” and “then” chain of reasoning.
Opposition also exists within man and his self, separating the mind and the body. Plato believed the world existed as a “reflection of an ideal world existing on some other plane”. On the other hand, Plato and Lao-Tze agreed on several different aspects. For one, both thinkers believed leaders should be picked based on their knowledge, i.e., the greatest minds present. Thus, leaders should be enlightened philosophically.
a) Explain the Platonic Concept of ‘Forms’ Plato believed that behind every concept or object in the visible world there is an unseen reality which he calls its ‘Form’. These Forms exist in the world of the Forms separate from the visible world. Within the world of the Forms the pattern or the objects and concepts for the material world exist in a state of unchanging perfection. Plato was more interested in the Forms of concepts such as good, truth and justice, than he was in the Forms of material objects. The meaning of the word beauty would correspond to some external reality (Plato called it the Ideal Form).
This question has been debated over since the beginnings of philosophical thought and continues to persist to this day. Many philosophers have contemplated this question and come to varying conclusions, spanning range from moral reasoning being purely a matter of feelings and passions to that it purely a matter of the intellect. The crux of the question, apathetic to whatever your personal beliefs may be, lies with the implications of the answer. The practical consequences that are derived from the distinction between these two opposing viewpoints are of paramount importance for assessing the values of human life. If moral judgments are solely based upon pure reason then they must necessarily be either right or wrong, true or false.