Content and Exam Tips for OCR A Level Religious Studies
Plato and Aristotle
Ancient Philosophical Thinkers
Content
the philosophical views of Plato, in relation to:
understanding of reality
the Forms
the analogy of the cave
the philosophical views of Aristotle, in relation to:
understanding of reality
the four causes
the Prime Mover
Key Knowledge
Plato’s reliance on reason as opposed to the senses
the nature of the Forms; hierarchy of the Forms
details of the analogy, its purpose and relation to the theory of the Forms
Aristotle’s use of teleology
material, formal, efficient and final causes
the nature of Aristotle’s Prime Mover and connections between this and the final cause
PLATO (427-347 BCE)
Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher. His work is often written as a dialogue, or script. He is acknowledged as having recorded many of the conversations of Socrates.
Influences on Plato
Parmenides' notion of the fixed world
the eternal World of Forms is fixed
Heraclitus' notion of the world in flux
"You cannot step in the same river twice" - once you have stepped in, the water has moved and changed
LOGOS = eternal constant; keeps one idea from surpassing its extreme - Gospel of John and the 'Word'
Pythagoras' abstract mathematics
concepts do not exist in the physical world
Socrates' notion of knowledge coming from reason
Plato was Socrates' student. Reason is superior to experience
Plato's Understanding of Reality and the Forms
Understanding of Reality and the Forms
Plato did not believe that the world could be understood through our senses alone. He postulated that the world we experience through our senses is an illusion; one that he calls the World of Appearances.
The World of Appearances is our world, where things appear to be real but they decay and wither; they change and are mutable. The things that change in the World of Appearances are called particulars; for example: plants, human beings, animals, etc.
Plato was a rationalist; he believed that our understanding of the world, and reality, comes through reason. As our senses can deceive us, we are not fully aware of the illusionary nature of the world in which we live.
Plato argued that there was a World of Forms where the true nature of reality could be found. However, only philosophers would be able to achieve an understanding of this knowledge as they are on the quest for truth. The World of Forms contains the immutable; the things that do not change, the forms.
The World of Forms exists in a hierarchy with the Form of the Good at the very top. The Form of the Good is present within every form and enables us to understand the forms.
Nature of the Forms
Abstract - they are not tangible; abstract notions we recognise in tangible examples
Constant - they do not change
Eternal - exist outside of temporal world in the World of Forms we visit between incarnations of the soul
Incorruptible - examples we encounter can decay but forms do not
Perfect - ideas are perfect and singular
Recognisable - we all recognise the Forms because we have already encountered them; these are the shadows Plato refers to in his allegory of the cave
Plato suggests that our souls remember the forms from before it was placed inside our mutable bodies. This process is called anamnesis.
The allegory of the cave shows Plato's theories. Like the prisoners, we are only able to see a 'shadow' of what is real. We must escape, or become philosophers, in order to understand the real world and the forms.
Men would not say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
Plato's Allegory of the Cave
Subtitle
This is your Text paragraph. It’s a great place to add a description of your business, your site or what you do. Use this space to add information for your users, write about your philosophy or your journey and define your distinguishing qualities. Consider adding an image for extra engagement.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Theologian, Brian Davies argued that the analogy of the cave helps to illustrate Plato’s theory of the Forms. It has been a powerful analogy throughout history to help people understand the relationship between the divine (God) and human.
Philosopher, Stephen Evans argues that Plato offers a rational argument for the existence of another reality / world. This provides people with hope that the material world isn’t all that exists and we can then look toward the world of forms as a more perfect form of existence.
Plato’s theory is appealing as it offers a logical and reasonable theory concerned with the idea that there are universal concepts. Scholars such as Immanuel Kant acknowledged the existence of absolutes. This is the belief that certain actions are intrinsically good or bad. For example, Plato uses beauty, truth and justice as ideas that everyone has knowledge of independent of experiencing these things physically. In addition, Plato is arguing that there are universal absolute truths that just exist and have always existed. Mathematical concepts such as addition (2+2=4) seem to be true irrelevant of any empirical evidence.
Bryan Magee argues that Plato’s theory of the forms and his analogy of the cave encourages people to seek enlightenment rather than being caught up with the material world. He says “The theory that there is another world than this…gives value and meaning to our present world...”
Some scholars have argued that Plato offers an effective argument as to why evil and suffering exist in the world. The material world is not the perfect world therefore, it is the actions of material beings that cause evil and suffering. Thus Plato’s ultimate reality is not responsible for evil and suffering.
Weaknesses
David Hume and Richard Dawkins would argue that Plato’s ideas about the physical world are counterintuitive. This means that it flies in the face of common sense to say that the world around us is an illusion – it seems so real! In fact the physical realm has empirical evidence to back up its existence. Dawkins would argue that any talk of the ‘transcendent’ (a world beyond the physical) is meaningless.
If you have a Form of a Form, or an ideal Form of Forms (like the Form of the Good), then what’s stopping you from having an ideal Form of that ideal Form? And an ideal Form of the ideal Form of that ideal Form? This argument is called infinite regression – it goes on forever backwards. Plato acknowledged this problem in one of his dialogues. If everything is a copy of some previous ideal then it to must have a copy.
Empiricists such as the Logical Positivists would question: what about opinion? Some people argue there is no such absolute value as ‘Good’, ‘Beauty’ or ‘Justice’ as it is subjective; people have their own opinion as to what is good. Therefore, it is unlikely that two people will always come to the same conclusion about what is good. Therefore, Plato seems to be incorrect in suggesting that there is an ideal form of goodness, beauty and justice.
Empiricists such as John Locke and Bertrand Russell argue that it is not logical to say there is a world we cannot see. Therefore, the theory may not be an obvious conclusion of logical reasoning. Plato argued that we use our reason (human intellect to work out what is real). They would argue that reality is based on sensory evidence not reason. Mel Thompson argues that the world presented in the analogy of the cave is not reflective of the world we inhabit. In this sense both the analogy and theory are ineffective.
Plato says that the senses are inferior, and that we should not rely on them. Yet people have been relying on their senses for survival for thousands of years. For example, our five senses are vital in helping us to gain a fuller and better understanding of the world in which we live. Evolutionary
Plato is not clear how the world of Forms relates directly to our world. Do the Forms have to relate to a specific variety of material object? For example, does the Form of a cat have to relate to a specific breed of cat? Is there a particular Form for each breed? Furthermore, it is unlikely that everything in existence has an ideal form. Is there an ideal slug or type of cancer? As Plato does not fully explain his theory of the forms it is difficult to accept the value of the theory.
Third Man Fallacy - all men are part of a group called 'man' so there is a form of man. However, that form of man is itself part of the group of men as it is itself a man. There must be a form to cover the new group. This is an infinite cycle.
There must be forms of negations and poor versions of things. There must be forms for everything. Is this helpful in understanding reality?
The theory of forms requires a belief in reincarnation. There is no solid evidence for reincarnation.
Plato offers so explanations for the connection between the forms and the particulars.
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Aristotle was Plato's student. He was an empiricist and disagreed with Plato's rationalist approach. Aristotle believed that we could rely on our senses to help us understand reality.
Aristotle's Understanding of Reality and the Four Causes
Aristotle did not agree with Plato's understanding of reality and believed that we could gain knowledge from our observations and experiences.
He understood that the world around us was always changing, just like Plato, and called this motus. Aristotle observed that beings changed from actuality to potentiality and argued these changed due to external forces. The process of change is described in Aristotle's Four Causes.
1. The material cause - describes the matter or substance that something is made from. This does not explain how or why motus occurs.
2. The efficient cause - describes the process of coming into existence or the process of change.
3. The formal cause - describes how we know what something is, its shape and characteristics. This explains motus by describing the result of the change from the material cause through the efficient cause into the object that it is.
4. The final cause - describes the telos (purpose).
Aristotle's Prime Mover
Aristotle believed the universe to be eternal; having no beginning or know end. He believed that the universe was made of concentric circles, with everything orbiting the earth. We now know that this is incorrect and our solar system orbits the sun.
Aristotle explains change in our world by understanding that everything is in constant motus, like the universe. Things are constantly changing from actuality to potentiality and back to actuality again. This motus results in change because everything is being drawn to the centre; the final cause.
The name given to the final cause by Aristotle was the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover draws things towards it without exhibiting any movement itself. The final cause of everything in the world is the desire for the Prime Mover; to move towards it.
Characteristics of the Prime Mover
Complete reality - cause of all that is
Good - bad implies able to improve; God cannot be improved
Impersonal - God is pure actuality, not a person
Mind - constantly thinking the universe is in motion
Perfect - God cannot be improved upon
Pure actuality - God cannot change into anything else
Transcendent - He does not interact with the world
Aristotle called the Prime Mover 'god' and is the only example of pure actuality; it has no potential to change and is the absolute goodness.
Aristotle's Prime Mover
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes seems effective due to his belief in a Prime or Unmoved Mover. It provides a clear reason as to why movement and change happen. Aristotle suggests everything within the physical world is drawn toward the Unmoved Mover through a desire to reach our telos. Aristotle recognised that everything in life is changing, and that everything that exists is in a permanent state of ‘movement’ or ‘motion’. Using his argument about the four causes, Aristotle reasoned that everything must have a Final Cause, or a purpose. Nothing comes from nothing, so it follows that when there is a chain of events, there must be an ultimate cause.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is supported by clear empirical evidence. The four causes can be observed in all things within the universe which supports Aristotle’s belief that there is a final cause to all things. The causes were material, formal, efficient and final. The material first cause refers to the matter or substance that something is made of, the formal is the shape in which the object takes, the efficient is what brought the object into existence and the final is the objects telos (Greek term for purpose).
Some scholars argue that the main strength of Aristotle is that he adopts the ‘a posteriori’ approach to evidence as opposed to Plato’s ‘a priori’ approach. ‘A posteriori’ focuses on empirical evidence which is based on observation and experience. Plato argues that we cannot trust our senses, however, much of what we learn and experience comes through our senses so we should trust them.
Aristotle is supported by the Christian community. His theory of the four causes and the unmoved mover has been adopted by the Christian faith to help them understand the nature of God.
Modern physics seems to suggest that the universe has a definite beginning. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe had a definite starting point rather than existing in an eternal and continuous state. This would indicate that the universe and matter are not eternal. Therefore,
Weaknesses
Plato and Descartes would argue that the senses are unreliable and can deceive us, with the example of how in dreams we are often convinced that everything is real, only to discover we are wrong when we awaken. Instead, rationalists would argue for a more ‘a priori’ approach to knowledge.
There is no clear evidence that everything does have a final cause. Some philosophers deny that there is any purpose to the universe. Such philosophers claim that the universe has no intrinsic purpose other than existing. In addition there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of the Unmoved Mover. Yes, we experience movement and change but this does not prove there is a being causing movement and change.
The concept of an Unmoved Mover or Prime Mover depends upon the argument that everything must have a cause. The argument makes a logical contradiction by claiming that the Unmoved Mover does exactly what it claims is impossible i.e. everything is caused by something else, the Unmoved Mover does not have a cause.
Bertrand Russell and David Hume would argue that the universe is just brute fact: “I would say that the universe is just there, and that's all.”, whereas Aristotle argued that there is a purpose or goal behind the universe as a whole, which was God or the Prime Mover.
Aristotle makes an assumption that matter is eternal and does not explain where it comes from. In addition, Aristotle’s theory is not consistent with the religious belief that the universe was God’s creation.
Comparing the Prime Mover and the Form of the Good
Similarities
Both are transcendent and cannot be known using the senses - reason needs to be used to understand them both.
Both are immutable, unchanging and perfect.
The Prime Mover is the telos of everything, and the Form of the Good is the aim of everything.
Differences
The explanations each gives for motus:
The Prime Mover draws or attracts all motus towards itself because it is the ultimate final cause or purpose.
The Form of the Good is unchanging and part of the World of Forms. Change happens only in the imperfect World of Appearances because it is imitating the Forms, but its imperfect matter will change and decay.
Where each is located:
The Prime Mover is part of the material universe in an 'orbit' beyond the planets.
The Form of the Good is in the real world (the World of the Forms), not part of this world.
How each is involved in the world:
The Prime Mover has no connection with things in the world.
The Form of the Good participates in all the Forms and we can recognise it in things in the World of Appearances.
How do we gain knowledge?
Epistemology is an area of philosophy that studies knowledge. It raises questions about what knowledge is and how we gain knowledge.
Plato - Reason
Plato was a rationalist; he argued that knowledge comes from using reason and recollecting the World of Forms. He distrusted our senses which he believed deceives and controls us, much like the prisoners were deceived in the allegory of the cave.
Plato also believed that our senses prevented us from accessing true knowledge in the World of Forms as they imprisoned us in the World of Appearances. Plato believed that knowledge was immutable and could not be accessed in the World of Appearances.
Aristotle - Senses
Aristotle was an empiricist who argued that our senses can be used to discover knowledge. He believed that true knowledge could be found in the material world by observing and categorising things by type and by difference. He found through detailed study that objects contained form and matter, and that the process of motus was explained by the four causes (material, efficient, formal, and final).
Although Aristotle relied on the senses to form his theory of the four causes, he did need to resort to using reason to postulate the Prime Mover. Empiricism cannot verify the existence of the Prime Mover because it is immaterial.
Evaluation
Strengths of Empiricism
There is no empirical evidence of the existence of another world outside of our senses so we should rely on our senses alone to find out more about reality.
We can only use reason after we have experienced the world around us.
If there is only one absolute Form of the Good why do people disagree over right and wrong? It is better to rely on observations.
Can knowledge really be innate as Plato suggests?
Strengths of Rationalism
We have a sense of beauty or justice that seems to be innate. We just 'know' is something if fair or unfair.
Knowledge comes from the World of Forms. Reason makes more sense of reality.
Senses can deceive us. People have different ideas about what is good.
Reason is more reliable because it is objective.