Socrates then gives this word a new meaning when stating that instead of having just wisdom, it may be more politically correct to say “human wisdom”. He clarifies the wisdom that he actually possesses as “human wisdom” to illustrate the extent of his definition of wisdom can only be “human”, because he does not know, nor possess any other definition. By stating that people with that “sort of superhuman wisdom”, Socrates implies that the people with
Aristotle has a monist approach to the soul, unlike Plato he says that the soul cannot exist without the body. The soul is not a body but something that belongs in a body, comparable to the brain; it is necessary and is within all humans and it gives us reason, intellect and an innate sense of justice. This therefore can make his theory more convincing than Plato’s as the soul isn’t ‘immortal’ and dies along with the body, thereby eliminating the theory of reincarnation which is hard for anyone who isn’t Hindu to believe as it is contradictory to their religious views. Aristotle states that all reason is associated with the pure thought of the Prime Mover and the soul is what gives the body its shape and form; he argued that the soul is not a substance but the reason and shape behind the matter. Best described by using the example of a marble statue, as the marble stature is essentially a block of marble but it has a shape and form and like the body the soul, the shape and form cannot be removed from what the statue is, in the same way the body cannot be separated from the soul.
The fundamental belief of metaphysics solely relies on the belief in oppositions of values. But Nietzsche questions this, ‘all is to be doubted,’ asking how do opposites originate – why is truth and deception or selfless and selfishness evil opposites? What if “value for life … [is] … ascribed to deception, selfishness, and lust”? [§2] There is a fundamental faith in opposites here that has never been questioned, these ‘highest values’ originated from where? Nietzsche asserts this prejudice is the first major fault philosophers make, these provisional perspectives identifies held prejudices, priori beliefs upon which they build theories of ‘truth’.
The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good. Kant then goes on to confront the claim that moral worth is linked to agreeable condition and the promotion of happiness by stating that the moral worth of an action lies in the principle and not the effect of the action. Kant claimed that agreeable conditions and happiness can be brought about by too many other causes that do not require human rationality, and that human rationality is the only place where the “supreme and unconditional good” (P.2) can
Plato’s Theory Strengths | Weaknesses | Forms or ideas can possess a more profound and reaching reality than material objects that we can touch or see. | He says “our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already…” I believe he is mistaken. It is an allegory, a hypothetical situation, an illustration at best. While this illustration might give evidence for what he is talking about, it is by no means a solid argument that an entire metaphysical and epistemological view of the world should be based off of. | We all have innate knowledge of justice e.g everyone seems to have an idea of justice inside them, even if it is not exactly the same for everyone, but this shows it must have come from somewhere plato says with his forms and how our souls remember roughly what the forms are like.
For example there is a form of beauty, which explains why we can all understand and know what beauty is, without the need to be told every time. However, we have our own opinions on what beauty it. This is because we don’t know forms fully, as only our souls (our only eternal aspect) is part of the Realm of the Forms and the concept gets mixed as we are not perfect. The Form of the good is 100% good, perfect, unchanging, eternal and outside this world. Plato’s definition of good is not the same as the good we define.
Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad. However, they disagreed about our basic moral duties. Unlike Intuitionism, Emotivism does not purport the existence of objective moral facts, truths or duties. Instead it takes
Contentment should be out of fullness and not laziness. Even though philosophers like Plato disagree with this statement (especially in Republic VII), other people may disagree which means that there really is no true answer. The people that agree with this statement however, would have not encountered enlightenment and are therefore less important that philosophers that have which makes this statement completely false in one’s
Despite having been taught my Plato Aristotle had a very different view on the theory of forms and the soul he completely rejected Plato’s theory of forms. Plato seemed to look at the mystical and was concerned with the ultimate reality Aristotle’s view was more down to earth he seemed to have a need for a more scientific approach in searching for answers in regards to human nature, forms and the soul he redefines soul and form in a completely different way to Plato’s teachings. He believed that ‘forms’ do not exist independently of the physical but that the physical and the form where in fact united, like form was the spirit of the physical so both out body and our soul where parts of our nature not just the soul, he came to understand that our world was made up of many
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.