The one in constant flux is the physical world that we encounter in sense experience. Because it is constantly changing we cannot have rational knowledge of it. The other world is a non physical world because it is eternal and unchanging; it is not located in space or time. Plato refers to this as the “intelligible world” because only this reality is intelligible to reason. Plato argues that the soul is a universal, pure, one substance, unchanging, immortal.
Socrates and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth. First, Socrates' concept of reality contrasts with Aristotle's concept. Socrates' theory of ideal forms claims that a perfect world exists beyond the world around us. Our world contains forms imperfectly copied from the ideal forms in the world beyond. In contrast, Aristotle's theory of the natural world states that our world is reality.
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
To him objects in this world are not eternal, and so the beliefs about objects cannot always be correct and cannot always have truth. Now according to Aristotle, he took great issue with Plato’s theory of forms. He says that Plato’s talk of participating is metaphorical and meaningless, and he says that Plato was mistaken in that the form circularity, the reverse doesn’t hold true. He believed that the reverse does in deed hold true, and that if there were not individual circular things, there would be no such thing was the form circularity. Aristotle’s views are that forms are universal, something that more than one individual can be.
An efficient cause is a cause that produces other causes. His premises deal with the problematic existence of efficient causes, for an efficient cause cannot cause itself—so how did it come into being? A series of infinite causes, where a first cause leads to a second,
We want to be able to conclude correct moral decisions. We want to be able to judge the actions of others. According to the moral realist, all of this requires the existence of moral facts. I am not convinced that the non-existence of moral facts needs to be a problem for morality. I believe we may well be able to do without moral facts.
Although there are many strengths of Plato’s forms, the theory also has a lot of flaws. For example, there is the ‘third man’ argument as well as fact that the theory does not have any conclusive proof. One criticism of Plato’s theory is that the existence of any other world other than our own is impossible - only his World of Appearances can be proved to be ‘true’ and real; his theory of a World of the Forms existing will always remain just that - a theory. If there is no conclusive proof that the Forms exist, how can they be of use to us in the real, illusionistic world? A second criticism of his theory is that the forms could just be ideas in people’s minds.
Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
Justice is a term that is used and defined in many ways. Therefore, if justice exists, why can it not exist within a codified constitution? The area in which Plato’s logic falls short on the subject of codified constitutions is that Plato does not take into account the differences that arise from an individualistic world versus a communal one. In the Phaedrus, Plato speaks of a universal truth which should be our ultimate guiding principle (248a-c). However, this universal truth is only known by the individual, who is incapable of knowing that truth until that exact moment that it presents itself.
Jessica Moore December 4th, 2013 Metaphysics Paper 2 Do the Phenomenological Features of Experience Make Physicalism False? A Defense of Nagel A major area of contention within the realms of the philosophic world is how to accurately depict the relationship between mind and body. Physicalism attempts to answer this question through the view that the universe, including all that seems mental, is entirely physical. However, according to dualist philosophers, such as Thomas Nagel and Frank Jackson, a primary obstacle for the physicalist is the apparent contrast between the intrinsic natures of our experiences and of the brains states with which they are allegedly identical. While both Nagel and Jackson propose that the nature of the mental makes it such that it cannot be explained solely through the physicalist perspective, they reach very different conclusions.