0

About Aristotle

Aristotle was quite different from Plato in his mental constitution and orientation. While Plato was a poet, mystic and an ethico-religious thinker, Aristotle was more of a scientist, a logician and an austere thinker. He was more of a realist in the sense that he believed the concepts(as called by Socrates) or Universals(as called by Plato) aren’t independent in themselves, that it is the concepts and universals as we call it that are in the things, the particulars, and not the other way round! There can be no universals without percepts.

For Plato, ideas are substances. Aristotle does not accept this. He also refuses to accept matter as a substance. He defines substance logically as that which has independent existence and also that it always is a subject and never a predicate. So basically, that which is a substance, according to Aristotle, can only be the subject and not the predicate. For example :
GOLD is HEAVY. Here, “gold” is the subject and the substance while heavy is the universal, the predicate. The predicates, like as they depend always on the subject, similarly the universals always depend on the particulars and not the other way round.

The reason why he also rejects to accept matter as matter as substance is because matter,by itself, is formless and an indeterminate thing. It doesn’t have an identifiable form. Thus, by itself it cannot be substance.

So what all precisely were the qualifications that were necessary for something to be a substance? (According to Aristotle, obviously :P)

According to Aristotle, something can be called a substance if it comprised of the following three elements :

a) A universal (like the “cowness” in cow which is a substance)
b) An unknown substratum called “Matter”
c) Qualities!

The famous line which the then went on to say
“It’s neither the matter that exists, nor the form…. what exists is a formless matter”

A universal cannot exist without qualities, and neither can “qualities” be defined to anything meaningful. (You cannot say just “tall”, there got to be a “thing” or a “particular” that is tall!)

Also, he was also more concerned with “becoming” rather than “being”. He believed in flux, changes and movements, reason why he propounds potentiality and actuality.

But ultimately, like his master Plato, Aristotle goes on to say that everything eventually ends to the pure form of God, which he calls as Actus Purus or Prime Mover. Similarities with Plato include teleogical similarity, soul being immortal and perfection of god as Actus Purus.

Now since comparisons between Aristotle and Plato is a vast topic which doesn’t necessarily deal with more widely than what I covered, the new post will be about something different from this, obviously talking about Aristotle’s Philosophy!

0

The Divided Line

In explaining the process of discovery of true knowledge, Plato introduces the metaphor of the divided line. The divided line has four segments which corresponds to four levels of knowledge and their respective objects of knowledge. Knowledge is an occasion from the lower aspects of the line to the highest, with rational insight being the HIGHEST LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE that gives the true knowledge of IDEAS and the GOOD. At the lower two levels, it is not called KNOWLEDGE, but OPINION, as it depends on sensory experience.

Here, it is notable that the four levels of knowledge do not correspond to different realities, but are four different ways to comprehend the same object.

At the lowest level of the line (AB), the mind merely confronts images of Shadows of objects. The next stage of belief (BC) corresponds to plain sensory experience of things.

When a person moves from belief to thinking, he begins to enter into the realm of knowledge. At thinking (CD), he begins to enter into the realm of knowledge. At thinking (CD), he finds mathematical knowledge. However, the highest kind of knowledge is the knowledge gained by Rational Insight (DE), here he gets knowledge of objects as their true forms or ideas.

Based on observation of the sensory world, Plato realized that everything is in a state of flux ; nothing is absolute/immutable. Example : The food that nourishes today, may kill tomorrow as it decays.

From this realization, Plato concluded that there could be no definite knowledge based on sense observations. He thus believed in a transcendental world of eternity where ideas and forms exist. Since he believed the soul to be Immortal and Immutable, it belongs to the transcendental world in Plato’s Philosophy.

    To know is to be

Ultimately, knowledge of ideas is the highest knowledge (Divided line). However, is not enough just to know the truth, it is possible to become the truth. Plato’s theory of knowledge culminates into Metaphysics or Theory of Being, by “to know is to be be”(Similar to Advaita). One who knows Brahm, becomes Brahm.

The more you know, the closer to truth you are, the higher being you becomes. One who knows the truth of ideas/forms, becomes JUST and WISE, like the one who has escaped from the love cave and seen the world.

Love for the ultimate is the only way/ the force which leads to the ultimate truth, one who knows this, becomes the true being. For this, one must focus on the eternal, immutable ideas that are the source of all contingents in the world.

0

Analogy of Cave

Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think and speak etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of forms. The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato’s Cave:

Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows. So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a book,” what is he talking about?

He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “book.” What does that refer to?

Plato gives his answer. The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:
“And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”
Plato’s point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato’s view) to the real things that cast the shadows.
If a prisoner says “That’s a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.

Plato’s point: the general terms of our language are not “names” of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind. When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.

Plato’s aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.

The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word “book” refers to something that any of them has ever seen. Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.

0

Arguments in favor of ideas

Plato’s theory of ideas can be understood from three perspectives :

a) Ontological : Ideas are things in themselves. They are the real entities, having an independent existence, depending neither on the world not God. They are non-spatial and non-temporal (i.e not belonging to this space and time)

b) Logical : Ideas are independent of sensuous experience. They are known through Reason of Rational Insight.

c) Teleogical : Ideas are purpose oriented. They are all directed towards the Idea of Good. Particulars exist to bring in actuality these ideas. The Idea of Good is beyond all ideas and rules and hence regulates them all.

    IDEA OF GOOD

:

– Beyond all ideas, but cause of all ideas too.
– Attracts all towards itself, like light attracts insects
– Ultimate reality/Highest Idea : Substratum of Universe, it occupies the same place as the God of Spinoza, Brahm in Advaita

Highest in the hierarchy of ideas, above even idea of god, absolutely free, self existent real. Everything in the world participates according to idea of good. It is the truth and beautiful. Purpose of human life is to realize the idea of good. Good brings teleological purpose to everything as the universe. It is the cause of the Universe. Indescribable as it is, not sensible.

Plato thus through this Idea of Good proposed longing and love for GOOD as the only way to attain the idea of good. This love is selfless and not directed towards any particular.

Now coming to the question in the topic, what all can be the arguments to justify Ideas/Universal? What all are the arguments that Plato gave? Well there are a few :

– Objects of this world are perishable and subject to change. Even empirical knowledge is subject to change. We can only opine about this world, but not gain universal, undoubted and unchangeable knowledge. This knowledge can be gained only of ideas, which have eternal existence.

– There are many particulars in this world, but they all have a common nature. Therefore, while particulars are many, their idea is one.

– Plato argues that we can understand the concepts of things which do not have existence anymore. Example : Dinosaurs, because their ideas are eternal. Plato uses metaphors/analogies to explain his theory of ideas such as analogy of cave, metaphor of equality.

Additionally, Plato propounds that ideas have a hierarchy from lower to highest ideas. The idea of good is the highest idea. All ideas are derived from the idea of good, but PLATO has not explained this further. This is the mystical aspect of his theory (This was later developed by Hegel, who explained how the absolute ideas unfolds through reason. The coming articles will deal with his philosophy in detail.)