Explain Aristotle's ideas about cause and purpose in relation to God. Aristotle was an ancient Greek Philosopher who studied at Plato's University, The Academy. Aristotle was fascinated about the physical world and universe. Althought Aristotle completely admired his teachers works and ideas, Aristotle approached philosophy completely differently to Plato and he completely disregarded Plato's teachings of The World of the Forms and concluded his own theory. Aristotle wanted to explain the purpose of things existing as they do, and rejected the idea of Plato's 'perfect form' of objects.
Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
Plato being rationalist theories reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge. Therefore he relied on the ability to reason in his attempt to explain the world. He produced his ideal world based on reason since such a world lies beyond the realm of the five senses. Plato ignored his senses because he believed his senses only revealed the imperfect forms of the ordinary world. He also believes people possess immortal souls that existing before birth and continuing after death.
Though Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas remained different; they even philosophized in different directions. Plato had an outward look on life, as opposed to Aristotle who had in inward look on life. Plato, who believed the soul to be immortal, sought explanations to reality, working outwards with the soul and body. Aristotle, on the other hand, worked inwards to explain the science behind change and natural processes, focusing on all forms of science. As a poet and mythologist, Plato’s writing was vague and expandable; he paid little attention to change, primarily focusing on reason and reality.
Thucydides vs. Plato The meaning of a good life can be drastically different depending on your point of view and the way you look at the world in front of you. Greek philosophers Thucydides and Plato were no different in this matter as they saw the world in two completely different ways. Thucydides used empirical claims to describe what he believed a good life was based on what he observed amongst the men fighting in the Peloponnesian War. On the other hand, Plato used normative claims to describe his beliefs based on what he believed, not observed, a good life entails. First off, it is important to note what the differences between these two types of thinking are.
The remaining fragments of Thrasymachus’ writings provide few clues about his philosophical ideas. They either deal with rhetorical issues or they are excerpts from speeches (DK 85b1 and b2) that were (probably) written for others and thus can hardly be seen as the expression of Thrasymachus’ own thoughts. The most interesting fragment is DK 85b8. It contains the claim that the gods do not care about human affairs since they do not seem to enforce justice. Scholars have, however, been divided whether this claim is compatible with the position Plato attributes to Thrasymachus in the first book of the Republic.
Questioning about concepts of “good,” “justice,” and “piety.” Plato answers each question, yet advancing to altered interpretations. The Republic states that in order to have a fair government, the people must be commanded by statesmen whose acquirements are both convincing and intuitive. As for the allegories in Plato’s story, he translates abstract ideas to a more solid representation. Plato’s mindset was that “ideas” only pertain in a spiritual realm. Plato’s allegory steers toward people only being able to understand life through sense perception.
The categorical notion of 'virtue' has a long history in moralistic philosophy. It’s first cogent exposition was offered by Aristotle, and it is thought by some that it has never since been expostulated better. Nevertheless, thinking about virtue did not stop with Aristotle, and his ideas are not believed to be unerring truth to everyone. I wish to focus on one central respect in which some moral philosophers, chiefly Immanuel Kant, have had doubts about Aristotle's account of virtue. I think that to a large extent the conflict is misunderstood, but it is also illustrative of some larger, more glaring issues in philosophy.
During these times after Plato, there was actually two school of skepticism that developed making a rival against academics or knowledge. (Moore, Bruder, 2011) Refutations Being part of the “Academics,” Augustine first battled against skepticism with the principle of noncontradiction. This principle makes it known that in a proposition and its contradiction, one must be correct and neither can be true. (Moore, Bruder, 2011) Moore and Bruder explain that “The stick is straight” and “It is false that the stick is straight” cannot both be true. Augustine also believed that when one believed or used any doubt, then that one is disclosing his/her existences.
As Lord Acton said ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. Its origin date back to Aristotle, the father of Political Science. Although he did not discuss the issue in great detail, he analyzed the functions of the three branches without suggesting their separation. The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty.