Aquinas and Plato?

I haven't finished Aquinas, but what I'm gathering is that he has three different parts of the Summa Theologica including External Law, Natural Law, and Human Law.  Although he does reference "the commentator" (averroes) It seems as though he uses a form of question and answering. Maybe not exactly the same as one like Plato, but similarities are definitely there. They way he uses the "objection", and then "on the contrary" is kind of like Plato in a sense that he allows actors to oppose him and is open to it, and then gladly answers to them. On the contrary, his ideology is more geared to that of Aristotle, not Plato. He uses "The Philosopher" Aristotle as a reference for many of his answers as well as the Bible. Aquinas opposes Plato in most ways though, and my correlation of their questioning methods may be very off....just a thought though.


Although Plato's works are more dialogues instead of question and answer format, it still really is a Q and A, just more entertaining with named actors. I'm pretty sure that William of Ockham may have used a question and answer technique but I don't remember.  I guess the point is, that they saw it as effective, because they try to cover all bases of their opponents before their opponents can. In Plato's work, it can be viewed that Socrates appeared to be arrogant in his ways of covering all bases before his opponents, but Aquinas doesn't come off that way to me.

Universals

Ive read so much about universals and its getting old. Not really but I just think I need to take a break. Anyway, I read William of Ockham and realized he was a strong advocate for Aristotelian ideology in many ways. He believed that universals relied on particular substances and that particular substances relied on each other to make universals. I think? When I started to read more and more, I realized that it was a lot harder to understand his points than I thought it would be. Some things seem simple, but I think thats only because I have read so much Aristotle that it seems like a breeze. I feel like sometimes he said that universals can be particulars and that they also cant. I think they can because they are particular in its significance, or in its work of signifying. And they cant because they cant be what it is predicated on, or else it wouldn't be predicated on anything. I feel like the "second intention" is like the primary substance from Aristotle and the "first intention" is the secondary substance...and then there's the whole predicate and subject thing. The dog is green means that green is modifying the dog, and this may be way deep but its almost like in Plato, the dog is modifying the green. Haha, that doesn't make sense but I can almost see how that could work if we were talking about the essence of green. Even though I know forms cannot really modify or be modified more than likely.

I think its easier to understand William of Ockham's ideology about universals being that of ones mind, because he explains it like a mental language. It makes sense to me, but then when he starts adding all the rules and extra detail it gets more complicated...but it wouldn't be philosophy if it weren't complicated.

Talk it out...or write it out I guess.

For this blog I thought I might just talk out some things that I'm studying for the exam to kind of kill two birds with one stone.

First I've started with substance of course, and that it is a cause of what something is, or the characteristics of what makes it what it is. 
-Core of what something is and exists in this world
-The definition of substance comes from secondary source because you cannot get a definition from a particular because attributes can get in the way of the definition
-Substance is physical, non transcendent and made of natural things.
-Composed of matter and form:

Matter-is perceived through our senses and is a kind of "stuff" things are made of

Form- The shape that matter takes. All matter has a perception of a form. Form is more the "___ness" that something has that cannot be differentiated into something else.
-To Aristotle, form is something that cannot be detached from matter, where as to Plato, Form is in its own world of existence and is more abstract.
- Aristotle's idea of form also that each form has something in common with similar objects, while Plato's view is that Forms are their own entity that cannot have comparisons.

Since Aristotle was an advocate of the belief of change, he studied the way that things come into existence and develop. In order to understand the change he came up with the 4 causes:
-Formal- Blueprint of the substance, primary substance
-Efficient- Who or what made it?
-Material- What is it made of?
-Final- Purpose, none of the other causes would be in existence if not for this cause. (teleological view, telos)

Another way of looking at change involves potentiality and actuality:
Matter-potentiality
Form-actuality

Kind of cyclical, one cannot exist without the other. (goes for matter and form, and potentiality and actuality)

Souls:
Another topic that Aristotle and Plato didn't agree on
Aristotle viewed the souls as an active living force and that their were different capacities in different living beings:
Nutritive- plants, reproduce
Perceptive- Animals, reproduce,  self movement, emotions
Rational-humans, reproduce, movement, emotions, reason (rationality)

Each capacity (obviously) carries the qualities of the previous one and then some.

Going more into Aristotle's idea of forms:
-Lower case "f" because inseparable from matter
-everything exists and is not "other worldly"
-commonalities with other similar objects is what makes it a form... depends on this fact
-"___ness" concept

Aristotle's problems with Plato's Forms
-Other worldly forms, where the other world has to actually be explained
-Plato's Forms do not change, where as Aristotle's do
-Aristotle believed in Empiricism, which meant knowing through observation, learning, experience...not something you already knew

Phew! That was a good recap of the most confusing things. If anyone has read this far, that's amazing.
Left out primary and secondary substances just because I have studied it so hard I felt no need to reiterate.

Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius

I think some of Aristotle's work and Marcus Aurelius's work can be seen in the same light. Aurelius believed that we should live for humanity in making our decisions. That we shouldn't be worried about any superfluous things that wastes our time. When I was reading Aristotle's virtue ethics, it kind of reminded me of that. When he talks about rationality he is basically saying that we are to avoid excess and deficiency. This sounds like what Aurelius is saying when he talks about not getting involved in material things, or things that are in the moment and wont matter in retrospect. Aristotle speaks of things that aren't virtuous, things that we shouldn't do, for example, murder. Aurelius speaks of how we should act and how to make our decisions. He says that we should make them based on what you want for humanity and what kind of place and people you want to live your life with. If you do things that aren't virtuous, it will only make your short time here miserable and not peaceful. Aurelius was a stoic philosopher that believed you should set emotions aside because they only hinder situations, and Aristotle also believed that emotions should only be guided with rationality. I think that the last statement can be looked at two ways, one comparing to Aurelius and one contrasting...but I see it as comparative because he still thinks you should control your emotions and guide it through rationality. Interesting...

Physics

Reading physics this week...understanding that like it was said in class, that Aristotle is basing a lot of his framework on the concept of change and how change is made in every aspect. Change is really all that you perceive it to be in my opinion. Depending on what you understand is change, is what change actually is. Sometimes I feel like when one tries to ponder it a certain way is helpful in some ways because they are getting different angles of perception but in another way may hinder how you initially come to your own conclusions. To some people pondering things like this doesn't even matter, but for others, our existence and the meaning of it is a central point of investigation. There are so many people from the past and present who have given different views on this investigation and I cant help but to wonder what makes people like Aristotle considered to be one of the most interesting people to have attributed to it. It makes me wonder about society and our western way of thinking...and the reasons why we decide to follow someones views or not follow them. What kind of views do we not consider seriously that others do? What are the reasons for that? This is why I think it is important to ponder on our own the possibilities initially, before considering anyone else. Of course we are predisposed to things without even knowing which complicates it even more.

Categories Vs. Forms

So Im trying to differentiate the Forms from Plato and Categories from Aristotle from each other to get a better grasp. From what I can gather the difference is that the Forms explain that there is an essence of each form that makes it a form and what we know as interpretations of those forms. In Aristotle's view, what makes up a category is not the "essence" like in forms, but it is a collective force that makes the category what it is. Because of the several things that make up a category makes it a category. So in Aristotle's view its not essence that makes up a form or something, but the collective-ness of what is made of it that makes it something. I'm not sure if this is right but Im just typing out my thoughts as I think them =/.  Another difference that I am gathering, is that Plato thought the Forms made up everything that was smaller, or everything that resembled a form, and Aristotle figured that everything that was a Form or a Universal, or Category made up the big, or the whole. So it was kind of backwards and they both clearly opposed each other on the views of Absolutes.

Forms

Since we have been talking about forms so much I figured Ill try and write on it. This theory is seemingly simple if you look at it in the way that we have been discussing it with the "four categories" on the chart that was made. When I really study it, its a lot more difficult to grasp and also hard to draw a line between the gray areas of the "categories". I can agree with most of Plato's reasoning on the forms, but I don't know if its made clear the ways in which one can learn to reason. Maybe I haven't read enough Plato yet. How can one be able to give well thought out reasons? Maybe by knowing how to distinguish "images" and "reflections" and concentrating on their root of representation. I understand that Plato thinks that works of art and drama are not good for this process because we are using our own interpretations, but on the other hand I feel that freedom of expression is so important to our culture and day to day life. This could get seriously tangled if one began to think about it. Does this mean we aren't to have any source of entertainment or sense of individualism? How is Plato not contradicting himself by giving us his interpretation of what he thinks is true. The way he was raised and the means of his culture gave a distinct way of interpretation and communication to him...How do we know what he perceives to be right is right if he is but a product of the same world we live in today? Is this theory really timeless, or has the growth of knowledge and everything else wiped out this theory or at least revised it?

Republic (Allegory)

So, I'm pretty excited that we are going to focus on the cave this week. Although this reading could be seen as simplistic in some ways, it really has a lot of validity in terms of society and also how one can come to know "truth". The allegory in my view explains how society can formulate our thoughts and what we think to be real "truths" without even knowing it. What we as human beings perceive as truth can be developed through experiences that force us to question our beliefs. The development of our perceptions can be made ( I think) through experiences of things like doubt or a break in habit. Socrates (Plato) talks about our seemingly "ready made" beliefs in the allegory of the cave when he talks about what I view as mental slavery. This whole reading is pretty compelling to me when I really think about it, and its also cool to think that my knowledge and opinions of modern philosophy coincides with Plato so much on the subject of truths and society. When I picture the cave I picture the fire being the "truth" or "reality" because he describes it as being above and behind us. I have read other philosophers that remind me of this subject and have influenced the way I think about people coming to know the "truths" of life. I also kind of feel like my wording of "truth" could also be compared to "reality". I feel like we are so compelled to know "truth" because we as humans are so complex and gaining an understanding of the truth compels us to delve deeper and push a sense of entitlement to the truth until we find it or what we perceive it to be. The world is such a turbulent constant flux of variables and maybe we strive for truth because its like the only constant we seem to think we have, like our rock that we clutch to...

Plato's Phaedo

This was my first time reading Phaedo and I noticed a lot of things that triggered me to ask questions about the validity of the arguments made by Socrates. The way he approaches his arguments are no doubt something to be recognized for, but I found some holes that I wanted to discuss about the soul. Other than the fact that the concept of the soul really and truly cannot be grasped by us as human beings (really the point of the whole argument), Socrates uses examples that didn't really convince me wholeheartedly. If we receive our divine and unchanging knowledge only through the mind, how are we supposed to create knowledge without the body? Going back to the theory of forms, he explains that there is a true essence of things, some concrete examples some abstract. The true essence of things is only found through thought (he says) because the body can hinder us from knowing the real thing. How can our physical being not contribute to "essence"? Using beauty for example, how does it exist without some type of image or experience? This is something that we cannot comprehend, because no matter how much we try, it only reverts back to physical being. He also argues that when things go from being living to being dead is through the process of dying, and things live by going through a process of coming to life (from dead to alive). This is his explanation of the theory of opposites. How can he say that these processes are the direct opposites of one another? He uses and example of big and small to relate to life and death. Big can get bigger or smaller, small can get smaller or bigger, can life get more lifeful or more deathful? Can death get less deathful or more lifeful? Adding to that, how does this all relate to the concept of the soul when he said the soul is unchanging (like knowledge)?...it is the body that is coming to life and dying then, not the soul.

This week in Philosophy...

This week in philosophy we discussed Democritus and Zeno in a fashion that contrasted them mostly. In this way of learning I feel compelled sometimes to pick a philosopher that I think is most right, forgetting that I don't have to do that. I forget sometimes that although these men are of great influence to western thought and elsewhere, their theories are THEIR theories and interpretations of understanding life. As weird as it might seem, I can grasp both of their theories and find truth in each. If I were to "pick" one like my mind tells me to, then Democritus would be the most liable choice. The notion that "we know nothing about anything" has always been an interest to me since I first started studying philosophy and reading Democritus made it that much more interesting. Also, his theories on destiny by necessity are compelling to think about. The fragments on Democritus' ethics are mostly agreeable to me with a few exceptions. Most of them toward the end, however made me look at things in a positive light and brought out a bit of optimism when reading and recollecting these ethics. The way they were explained and laid out reminded me of Confucius a little, just because each ethical theory was so insightful and interesting to think about. 

"One must not seek the latter, but must be content with the former, comparing one's own life with that of those in worse cases, and must consider oneself fortunate." (Democritus). That idea has carried on in so many forms and through so many years, it is inevitable to be truthful and inspiring.