Philosophy notes. DEFINITIONS Epistemology: the study of the theory of knowledge.

A priori: Knowledge gained through reason before the senses. A posteriori: knowledge gained through the senses: Empirical knowledge. PLATO Didnt like the senses unreliable. Student of Socrates Inspired by Heraclitus The republic o What is justice? o What would make a society more successful? o Platos model of society Workers had bronze souls had empirical knowledge. Soldiers/auxiliaries had silver souls Philosopher kings Gold souls had rational knowledge can see the truth. o Elite meritocracy: can train the soul. Two world theory World of the forms Truth is here. We can only access this through rational knowledge. The forms exist here. They are perfect originals o Eternal o Transcendent o Immutable o Absolute. World of appearance Empirical world where we use our senses. Not real. Everything here is a copy of its real self. o An illusion This world is relative and can change.

Souls come from the world of the forms- eternal Dualist- Idea that body and soul are two separate substances. The soul cant be destroyed or broken down. So when your body dies, your soul separates and returns to the world of the forms. Reincarnation can be linked to this theory. The soul contains knowledge so put into a human it becomes your job to train the soul. When you are born you are just remembering what you already know.

This explains child prodigies and dj vu. Mino- example of slave solved maths problems despite never having been taught maths. Plato argues that it is through the soul that you can erase the truth. It is like the eye but instead lets you grasp logical or rational truth 3 different souls Bronze Silver Gold Plato and the cave analogy Strengths Plato recognises the danger of being fooled by your senses. Makes you think It encourages you to develop and not settle for the ordinary. Encourages rational thought He suggests an afterlife with his theory of reincarnation. Suggests the importance of education and harmony. Weaknesses Elitist The senses are important The senses are part of being human who we are. You need senses to reason = knowledge is a combination of the two. Plato must have used his senses to develop his theory No proof His theory can be interpreted in different ways.

Plato and the forms Plato argues that a form was an ideal or concept. If you looked at all the tables in the world you would find that they were very different but there is something that allows you to identify a table as a table. Plato argues that this is what a form is. An object in the world of appearance can consist of different form. He also mentions negative forms. Attributes of the forms: Eternal Transcendent Immutable Absolute Perfect Cant be broken down Original

Attributes of the world of appearance: Finite Imperfect Subject to change Relative Copy In time and space

Plato hated art because it used the senses and was a copy of a copy. Plato also used geometry to make his point about the distinction between forms and shadows. It explained how you could never draw a perfect circle. The demiurge: A force that keeps the forms in existence. Evaluating Platos theory of forms: 1. Plato was looking for the truth. He recognised that things constantly changed in this world but argued that there was an underlying truth behind this change, which could give us answers and therefore knowledge. This truth was the forms. He was influenced by Heraclitus you can never stand in the same River twice Heraclitus argued that there was a certainty that lay behind this change. 2. There is no evidence for the forms. 3. The forms can devalue our existence. Empirical knowledge is part of whom we are, we function using the senses, so why ordinary people should be made to feel inferior. Can you live a life just based on logic and the a priori? Isnt human nature about using the senses? 4. Plato argues that the forms cant be broken down. If they are indivisible, then how can they mix with the world of appearance? (Ribena example) 5. Plato doesnt properly explain the forms. Is there a form of the perfect human, or the perfect male or female? If there is a form of each number then there must be an infinite number of forms. If something is infinite then it is impossible to establish knowledge so Platos attempt to establish knowledge doesnt work. 6. Plato doesnt explain where the forms come from, Plato argues for a hierarchy of forms the highest being good. So to know if something is just you can answer this by looking at goodness. But then you can ask is something good, but to know if it is good, you would need to know if it is good, you would need to know the form, of the form good. Is there an infinite regression of forms? 7. The forms dont really have any practical value. For example if a doctor knew the form health, it wouldnt help them treat the patient.

ARISTOTLE Studied with Plato at the academy was a student of Plato. Aristotle was an empiricist he said you couldnt ignore your sense, he set out to explain how things could change but their matter actually remained the same. He recognised that things had both potentiality and actuality e.g. a tadpole has the potential to become a frog but it actually isnt. When something achieves its actuality or purpose (telos) it is good. He was interested in the way the world worked so very influential in the scientific field. Aristotles epistemology: The 4 causes 1. 2. 3. 4. Material cause what is the substance that the object is being made? Formal cause the form or pattern of the object/being. Efficient cause the thing that brings it into existence and determines its purpose. Final cause the purpose of the object or being.

How can we have knowledge of something if things are in constant change? Potentiality the possibility of doing something or becoming something. Actuality when potential is achieved. The prime mover For Aristotle the chain of cause and effect cannot go on forever (doesnt believe in infinite regress) So we must ask what started off the chain. Aristotle argued there must be a thing that started it without itself being caused. An uncaused cause Or the prime mover (meaning first) mover.

The prime mover keeps everything in existence it is the first thing. The prime mover doesnt change pure actuality/pure thought. It is disinterested in the world; doesnt get involved in the world as it might change The prime mover helps everything to achieve its purpose. It does not determine the purpose; the prime mover attracts everything towards it to help it achieve its purpose. All matter must have a form but there is one exception the prime mover. This is pure substance that has no form transcendent. Objects are changed in a number of ways and these changes are caused nature does not act without a purpose (there is purpose within nature teleology) If there is change something must initiate it the prime mover (thought of intelligence, has an unknown plan, and does not know the world. The prime mover only thinks of itself; if not it isnt perfect.) The prime mover is the ultimate explanation of why things exist a final cause. It is necessary or else there would be nothing.

Against the prime mover? 1. Bertrand Russell existence of universe is a brute fact requiring no final cause. 2. Where did matter come from if the prime mover is thought only? 3. If the prime mover is God then not very friendly. Aristotle was a Monist believed the body and the soul are one. The soul is sometimes called the psyche it animates objects/beings. He gives the example of wax. When you put your finger into the wax, once it dries you cannot separate the print from the wax. In the same way you cant separate the soul from the body. Once the body dies; so does the soul. The only way Aristotle thinks that you can live on is through thought/reason. This thought joins the prime mover. Strengths and weaknesses of Aristotle Strengths Your soul makes you unique brings you to life. More scientific it uses empirical evidence e.g. science tests using the senses. The prime mover helps explain how everything achieves its purpose. The concept of the prime mover could fit in with the big bang theory first cause. He doesnt ignore the senses but recognises that they are part of human nature. Aristotle explains how something can change over time through potentiality and actuality. So we can have knowledge of something even if it changes. Weaknesses Aristotle argues the prime mover cant be changed and then suggests that reason can join the pure thought of the prime mover this doesnt make sense as it would surely change. He doesnt really explain what the prime mover is or where it comes from. The senses can be fooled can they really give us knowledge? Do the 4 causes really give you any extra knowledge because you would have to know the object/thing to apply the 4 causes to it? How can the prime mover not be involved in the world and yet still help things achieve their purpose. It wouldnt be up to date. Its not always obvious what a things purpose is e.g. a gnat.