Abstract In this article the writer looks at concept of moral values in relation to the existence of God. The writer discusses in this essay the possibility that God does not exist. The writer points out that given that people had previously lived for so long in an intellectual and moral world, in which most people had assumed that objectivemoral values derived from the wishes of some or other God, this has had important implications for ideas regarding moral values.
From the Paper "Ever since great thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Bertrand Russell pointed out the so-called "problem of evil," philosophers and theologians have been acutely aware of the possibility that God does not exist."
Abstract In this article, the writer studies ethics and moral philosophy. The information in this study is based on the works and ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Mill. The writer focuses on Kant's ethical philosophy with particular regard to the categorical imperative. The writer also discusses the development of ethical discourse.
From the Paper "The purpose of this research is to examine the validity and relevance of Kant's ethical philosophy, in particular the categorical imperative to modern experience. The plan of the research will be to set forth the historical and cultural context in which Kant's ethical philosophy was developed and then to discuss whether and to what extent a defense of the categorical imperative as a controlling ethical idea is possible in the modern world. The development of ethical discourse appears to be as old as the emergence of philosophy itself. "
Abstract This paper looks at two of the classical experts on rhetoric, two philosophers, two ancient thinkers from Greece - Plato and Aristotle - who while they were close had differing opinions and beliefs regarding this art and way of thinking and arguing. The following essay looks at Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus in order to study just what this man's thoughts on rhetoric were. Then the focus shifts to Aristotle, whose Rhetoric and Poetics will reveal this philosopher's wisdom on the subject.
From the Paper "Aristotle and Plato on Rhetoric "Rhetoric" is a term thrown around too often today, with the user most likely having no clue of its meaning or rich background. From "rhetorical" questions to claims of politicians merely using "rhetoric," too many times the term and overall idea is exercised without a complete understanding of exactly what "rhetoric" is."
Abstract This paper explores the similarities and differences between Plato's and Aristotle's treatment of democracy. By analyzing the work in terms of Plato as a philosopher and radical, and Aristotle as a political scientist and moderate, the two presentations are compared and contrasted side by side. Marx is also used to comment on the society.
From the Paper "In terms of Plato and Aristotle's treatment of democracy, functions of perspective, attitude, and backgrounds shape the similarities and differences of these two profoundly influential thinkers. Plato's search for the "truth" and the magnitude of his work has made him synonymous with discipline of Philosophy, on the other hand, Aristotle, although a philosopher as well, is often credited as being one of the originators of political science. With those two distinctions in mind, as we discuss democracy as "a government by the people," the two thinkers perspectives can be classified is that of the philosopher, Plato, and that of the political scientist, Aristotle."
Abstract This paper points out that there are numerous points in Aristotle's philosophy that challenge the ideas of his predecessor, Plato. The essay argues that Aristotle's analysis of the Platonic concept of the forms effectively highlights inconsistencies and problems in Plato's understanding of the form of a thing.
From the Paper "It is not surprising that there is a close relationship between the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, given that Aristotle spent twenty years of his life as a member of Plato's Academy. This being said, however, it is interesting to note the numerous points in Aristotle's philosophy upon which he challenges the ideas of his predecessor. Plato's theory of Forms represents one key example on which Aristotle disputes both the assumptions and the arguments of Plato."
This paper analyzes how Aristotle and Plato separately lead to the question of nature, and how there is a complete difference in political recommendations between a master and his former pupil.
Abstract This paper draws a comparison between Aristotle's "Telos" and Plato's "Form", arguing that the "material good" is the basis of politics. It also analyzes the differences in their philosophies and shows the discontinuity between their theories.
From the Paper "Greek thought has indisputably provided a cornerstone throughout the development of western civilization. Perhaps two of the most influential contributors to this thought were Aristocles, better known as Plato, and his pupil, "the reader(1)," Aristotle. Among them existed a traditionally non-sophist view of an ultimate truth which dominated many of their philosophies. These views, however, deviated from each other in even the most primal state, becoming Plato's Form and Aristotle's Telos, and affecting them towards often discontinuous political philosophies. Whereas Form dealt with an ultimate truth beyond the sphere of the physical plane, Telos centered on a final causality, an objects "good," which manifested itself as the result of the nature of that object within the sphere of material existence. This led Plato on a search for a higher thought above traditional politics, and Aristotle on a search to provide the best possible path to achieving the final "good" within it."
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts Aristotle's and Plato's conceptions of emotion and reason. The paper focuses on how each philosopher viewed the issue of reason as the most important thing in life.
From the Paper "Plato and Aristotle believed that meaning could be discovered through introspection. Two of the greatest philosophers ever to walk the earth, these intellectual giants were consumed with constructing an ethical worldview that could uncover the meaning ..."
Abstract This paper examines Plato's theory of the forms and the reasons why Plato uses this metaphysical argument to justify how a state should be ruled and by whom. The theory is taken to its most logical endpoint a number of times to test its strength. Plato's technocratic viewpoint is mentioned along with the reasons why he held such views. Numerous criticisms are used and examined, which originate from Aristotle, Plato's pupil, and from Plato himself, with his later works also being touched upon.
From the Paper "The basis of Plato's theory of the forms is that he "distiguishes between the experienced world that most of us think of as reality" and the "real world of the forms accesible only to philosophers" . The world that we ordinarily experience with our sences is just a "superficial reflection", or shadow of the real world of the forms, that remain invisible to all but the greatest philosophers. Plato explores not only objects such as a chair or a triangle, but also looks at such things as goodness and beauty. For example, Plato argues that beauty must be something quite different from the image of beautiful things."
Abstract This paper analyzes the concept of morality as seen in Plato'o "Republic." The author examines morality drawing on arguments presented in the first chapter of Plato's work. Several other philosophers' outlooks are examined, which include Socrates, Polemarchus and Simonides. Their opinions on morality are compared and contrasted, with the central focus given to Socrates.
From the Paper " Thus through this first chapter of the book, we come to understand that Socrates' idea of a moral person is based on his own original thinking and conclusion drawn from dialogue. He didn't believe in one exact definition of morality but believed in drawing some attributes of a moral person through discussion and dialogue. For this purpose, he found the loopholes in traditional view of morality and based his definition on long dialogue with those who believed in the former. He believed that morality was good and immorality bas because "immorality makes for mutual conflict, hatred, and antagonism, while moral behavior makes for concord and friendship" (p. 40). Thus Socrates maintained that morality could not be judged through truthfulness or return of borrowed items, it had to be based on character attributes of the person. He felt that a moral person was one whose action led to something good and beneficial while immoral person's action led to exactly the opposite. In other words, it is the actions that make a person. If an action leads to positive results from highest number of people, we can claim that it was a moral action and vice versa. Socrates' main argument was not in favor of his view of morality but rather it was in opposition of the prevailing view. "
Abstract Speculates that Arittotle and Plato would likely have been opposed to abortioin as not morally permissable. Discusses the ethical arguments of Aristotle, and his moral philosophy: good of the individual vs. good of the community. Plato's moral philosophy. His emphasis on community over the individual. What determines moral and just acts. Role of the State.
From the Paper "Both Plato and Aristotle would likely be opposed to abortion, based on The Republic and Nicomachean Ethics, respectively. There are ideas in Aristotle's ethical arguments which might allow more leeway for the act of abortion than is found in Plato, but in general the great weight of both philosophers' arguments would seem to be against abortion as not morally permissible.
Neither man discussed abortion directly, which makes this study speculative. Considering Aristotle's golden mean, and his greater emphasis on freedom for the individual as opposed to the power of the state, one might find room for some behavior which would not be permissible in the more strict moral world of Plato as described by Socrates. In addition, a feature of Aristotle's moral philosophy is the tenet that every individual believes his..."
Abstract This paper analyzes the question of what constitutes a good life from a philosophical point of view. It relates the question to moral issues and happiness and explores where the two are in conflict. It opens with an exploration of the views held by Aristotle that individuals are responsible for their own moral disposition and the moral choices they make. Next it focuses on Plato. Central to Plato's thought on this topic is the power of reason and he takes a rationalist approach. Finally, the paper looks at the perspective of Socrates who centers much of his approach in justice. The writer concludes by arguing that Plato and Aristotle agree that everything in the world is striving towards the good.
From the Paper "Happiness can be identified not as an element in living the good life but as the act of living the good life. Aristotle indicates this with reference to the issue of wisdom, and wisdom form Aristotle means knowing the good life and how to achieve it. Aristotle presented in his works a compendium of the knowledge of his time and examined issues and facts to discover how things worked, what was believed about them, and also to separate this knowledge into categories. He did not do this simply as a compiler but filtered what he found through his own sensibilities and philosophical thought. For each art, says Aristotle, there is an end to which the art tends, and the variety of smaller goals along the way are the means to achieve this end. The knowledge of the goal, the chief good, serves as a guide so that we direct our energies toward and achieve the goal. Aristotle argues that not all ends are final ends, and some are the means to other ends."
Abstract This paper expounds on Aristotle's theory that knowledge is 'a posteriori', or comes after experience, and Plato's theory that knowledge is 'a priori', or comes before experience, and then further explains the differences in their theories.
From the Paper "The Platonic theory of knowledge is divided into two parts: a quest first to discover whether there are any unchanging objects and to identify and describe them and second to illustrate how they could be known by the use of reason, that is, via the dialectical method. Plato used various literary devices for illustrating his theory; the most famous of these is the allegory of the cave in Book VII of The Republic. The allegory depicts ordinary people as living locked in a cave, which represents the world of sense-experience; in the cave people see only unreal objects, shadows, or images. But through a painful process, which involves the rejection and overcoming of the familiar sensible world, they begin an ascent out of the cave into reality; this process is the analogue of the application of the dialectical method, which allows one to apprehend unchanging objects and thus acquire knowledge. In the allegory, this upward process, which not everyone is competent to engage in, culminates in the direct vision of the sun, which represents the source of knowledge."
This paper explores Plato's theory of knowledge in the Philebus, specifically, the division of knowledge into four kinds in order to solve the metaphysical problem of the One and the Many.
Abstract This paper explores Plato's Philebus as it deals with the metaphysical problem of the one and the many. By dividing knowledge into four kinds: that which has limit, the unlimited, mixed (limited and unlimited), and the cause. Plato is able explain how the forms (especially the good) can be completely one, while the objects in the physical world are many. The four kinds are explained in detail, with many examples. Some comparisons are drawn to Aristotle's theory of knowledge, as well. Brief comments are made on Plato's theory of knowledge and its relation to his belief that the life of philosophy, i.e., wisdom, is the true life.
From the Paper "In the Philebus, Plato tackles one of the greatest metaphysical problems in his view of the universe. The world of the forms, of which the good is the guiding and ordering principle, must be absolutely one. If the forms correspond to reality, they must partake of one unity indivisible, eternal, unique, unchanging, at rest, always the same, and existing essentially. However, man exists in time, so he must be subject to change. He exists as an individual in a world of infinite particulars. The plurality of the material world, in contrast to the unity of the forms, is associated with becoming, time, process, change, motion, differentiation, and relativity. For Plato, the conflict is how to assess the relationship between the universal and the particular. Unlike in Aristotle's view, Plato does not accept that an understanding of the universal can be grasped through a simple analysis of the particulars. Knowledge begins in sense perception, but does not end there. Plato's answer is a division of the universal "one" into kinds. The particulars are unlimited, so he must demonstrate that the forms are one (so that they can exist), yet not so one that they do not allow the particulars to be divided into kinds. The one must be a whole, but a whole whose wholeness is greater than the sum of its parts. To "divide" the one into the proper parts, one cannot move too quickly from the universal to the particulars."
Abstract Music is an important element in life. Every person has the ability to listen to music and evaluate it based on his or her own personal tastes. This paper explains Aristotle's belief that measuring the worth of music based on personal likes and dislikes was the only appropriate way to determine music value. The paper also discusses Plato's view which differed from Aristotle's. Plato claimed that certain criteria had to be used to evaluate music. These criteria were necessary to alleviate subjective arguments and provide a universal system of measurement important in an ordered society. The paper then discusses the point that, while it is Aristotle's concept of music evaluation that was ultimately embraced by society, Plato's musical evaluation process can still be attributed to the manner in which some people believe that the value of music should be measured. Plato believed that music had the power to alter human emotion.
Abstract This essay is a comparison study of the works and views of Plato and Aristotle. The author explains that one of the basic ideas that these two great minds disagreed on was the value of art and of poetry, especially the merits of the Greek tragedy. Aristotle believed that art in all of its forms was a beneficial and necessary outlet for the expression of man's innermost feelings and fears. On the other hand, Plato condemned art and poetry. This paper examines the different ways in which these two great minds interpreted the arts and their purpose allows for a greater understanding of the workings of these two great minds and the two great channels of philosophical thought which they produced.
From the Paper "Three and a half centuries before the birth of Christ, an ancient Athenian known as Plato expressed this negative view of the value of poetry and the arts in an essay he called The Republic. To the occupants of ancient Greece, drama and tragedy were considered part of the poetic arts, and to Plato, the most revered and respected of ancient Grecian philosophers, poetry and art misrepresent heroes, encouraged moral weakness and went against the principles of his notion of the ideal polis, or state. In The Republic, Plato condemns not only the value of poetry, but also the value of art in general. This condemnation was eventually to be refuted in the year 350 BC in an essay entitled The Poetics, an essay written by Plato's philosophical prot?g?, Aristotle."
