Phil Final
What is "a nature" according to Aristotle? Explain.
According to Aristotle, "nature" refers to the inherent properties and characteristics of a thing that determine its behavior and functions. In his philosophy, Aristotle believed that everything in the world has a specific nature or essence, and that this nature determines the way in which a thing behaves and functions. Aristotle also believed that everything in the world has a purpose or end that is determined by its nature. He also believed that a nature can be understood through four causes: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause.
According to Aristotle, what is distinctive about the human soul, and what is the goal of human life?
According to Aristotle, the human soul is the principle of life and consciousness in humans. It is the source of our thoughts, feelings, and actions, and is what makes us uniquely human. Aristotle believed that the soul has three main parts: the nutritive soul, which is responsible for the functions necessary for sustaining life, such as growth, nutrition, and reproduction; the perceptive soul, which is responsible for our perception and movement; and the human soul, which is responsible for our capacity for reason and thought. Aristotle believed that the goal of human life is to achieve a state of living a life that is fully realized and fulfilling. To achieve this, Aristotle believed that it is necessary to develop and use one's rational faculties to their full potential, to live in accordance with reason and virtue, and to engage in activities that are both pleasurable and meaningful.
What makes an act morally worthy, for Kant?
According to Kant, an act is morally worthy due to its intention (will) , not its consequence (effect). Kant uses a few examples to illustrate his claim. The first is the merchant example. In this example, there are two merchants, one doesn't cheat his customers because it's the right thing to do, and the other does not cheat his customers becuase it is bad for his business. The actions are both done in accordance with their duty, it is the motives of the merchant that is unclear, making the moral value of their decision ambiguous. The second example is the preserving lives example. The preserving lives example discusses how it the duty of individuals to preserve their own life. However, most humans preserve their life in conformity with duty, but not from duty, thus this is not a moral act. In the case that a man wishes for death, but still preserves his life, without loving it, acting from duty, then this is a moral heat.
According to Lucretius, what is the nature of the soul, and what is the goal of human life?
According to Lucretius, the soul is a material substance that is composed of atoms, just like everything else in the universe. He also believes the soul and the body are interdependent, material, and mortal. In his philosophical poem, On the Nature of Things, Lucretius argues that the soul is not immortal and does not survive the death of the body. When the body dies, the soul ceases to exist as the atoms it is made of disperse. In contrast to Aristotle, who believed that the goal of human life is to achieve a fulfilled life, Lucretius believed that the goal of human life is to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He argued that pleasure is the highest good and that the pursuit of pleasure is the goal of all living beings. He also believed that true pleasure can only be achieved through the exercise of reason and the avoidance of fear.
Does Aquinas think violence can be done to the will? Explain.
Aquinas believes that violence can not be done to the will, but with a significant qualification. This qualification involves a distinction between two acts of the will. These two acts are immediate acts and commanded acts. Immediate acts are desires, as such, for the immediate acts, the intellect moves the will. However, for the commanded acts, which are actions, they are compelled by forces. The commanded acts of the will, can suffer violence, as violence can prevent the will's commands from being executed. However, Aquinas still says that violence can not be done to the will because it is the acts' of the will experiencing the violence, not the will itself. Aquinas also believes that it is contrary to the nature of the will's own act if it were to able to experience violence. Similarly to how if a man were to be dragged by force, it is certain that his own will did not drag him, but rather it was a notion of violence.
What are Aristotle's four causes, and what does he mean when he says "the natural scientist should know them all" (Physics 2.7, 198a23)?
Aristotle's four causes are four principles that he believed were necessary for understanding the nature of any given thing. The material cause is the first cause. This refers to the physical matter or substance out of which a thing is made. For example, the material cause of a statue is the bronze that it was made from. The formal cause is the second cause. This refers to the form or structure that gives a thing its shape and identity. For example, the formal cause of a statue is its design. The efficient cause is the third cause. This refers to the cause that brings a thing into being. For example, the efficient cause of a statue is the artist who created it. The final cause is the last cause. This refers to the purpose that a thing is intended to serve. For example, the final cause of a statue might be to serve as a work of art, to honor something or someone, or simply to look good. Aristotle believed that these four causes were interrelated and that they all contributed to the complete explanation of any given thing. He also believed that the natural scientist, or the person who studies the natural world, should be familiar with all four causes in order to understand the nature of the things being studied.
Explain Augustine's account of how free will is misused.
Free will is a gift from God that allows humans to choose between different courses of action. Augustine believed that God gave humans free will so that they could freely choose to love and serve him, but that this gift has often been misused by humans. Misuse of the free will is when it is moved from the common and unchangeable good to private and lesser changeable goods. We are turned voluntarily. We as humans have the power to be self aware of whether we are willing unchangeable good or lesser good, so we must accept blame for turning our will to lesser goods. Augustine argued that humans have a natural tendency to to use their free will to choose actions that are opposed to the will of God, and leads to the suffering and imperfection that is present in the world. This also means sinning. According to Augustine, the misuse of free will is the root cause of all evil and suffering in the world. He argued that if humans were to use their free will to choose to love and serve God, they would be able to overcome their tendency to sin and live a life of righteousness and happiness. However humans often misuse their free will and choose actions that are opposed to the will of God, leading to suffering and imperfection in the world.
Explain Taylor's notion of "horizons of significance."
Horizon of significance" refers to the background context within which we make sense of our experiences and understand the world around us. It includes the shared assumptions, values, beliefs, and frameworks that we use to interpret the events and phenomena that we encounter. For example, the horizon of significance of a person living in ancient Greece would be quite different from that of a person living in the 21st century. The former would have a different set of assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the world and the place of humans within it, while the latter would have a different set of assumptions and beliefs shaped by contemporary culture, science, and technology. According to Taylor, our horizons of significance shape not only our understanding of the world, but also our sense of self and our relationships with others. They provide the frameworks and categories through which we make sense of our experiences and give them meaning. As such, they play a central role in shaping our identities and our place in the world.
What is the difference between Socrates and "the sophists" (wise men), according to Plato's Apology?
In Plato's Apology, Socrates distinguishes himself from the sophists, who were a group of intellectuals in ancient Greece known for their ability to argue persuasively and persuade others. The sophists often charged a fee for their services. Socrates, on the other hand, did not charge fees for his philosophical discussions and claimed to be motivated solely by a desire to seek truth and wisdom. He believed that the pursuit of knowledge was an end in itself and that it was important to examine one's own beliefs and values in order to live a virtuous life. Socrates also differed from the sophists in his approach to philosophy itself. While the sophists were more interested in winning arguments and persuading others, Socrates focused on questioning and challenging assumptions in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the world. He believed that true wisdom came from self-examination and critical thinking, rather than from simply being able to win arguments or persuade others. Overall, the main difference between Socrates and the sophists is that Socrates was more interested in truth and wisdom, while the sophists were more interested in winning arguments and persuading others.
Explain Aristotle's claim, "the soul is the first actuality of a natural body that is potentially alive" (De Anima 2.1, 412a28).
In his work De Anima, Aristotle asserts that the soul is the source of life and the first actuality of a natural body that is potentially alive. This means that the soul is responsible for bringing a living organism into being and for sustaining its life. Aristotle's concept of "actuality" refers to the actual or fully realized state of a thing, while "potentiality" refers to the capacity or possibility for something to become actual. According to Aristotle, a natural body that is potentially alive has the capacity to become a living organism, but it is not yet fully actualized. The soul, on the other hand, is the actuality or realization of this potential, and it is what gives a living organism its life. In this sense, Aristotle is saying that the soul is the source of life behind the functioning of a living organism. It is the soul that enables a living organism to grow, move, perceive, and think, and it is the soul that gives a living organism its uniqueness
According to Kant, what is the connection between morality and happiness?
Kant separates beneficial consequences and morality since moral actions do not necessarily help humans in any way. Thus, it appears that morality has nothing to do with happiness, however this is incorrect. Happiness, which inspires confidence, is the whole principle for acting morally. Kant defines happiness as continuous well-being, enjoyment of life, and complete satisfaction with one's condition. He also includes, power, riches, honor, health, and well-being in this definition. Essentially, happiness is getting what one wants. Morality is not based on happiness due to this definition, however, one's own happiness is a sort of duty. Since it is a duty, the pursuit to create happiness for yourself is a moral act.
What is purity of heart, according to Kierkegaard? What the two common barriers to achieving this?
Purity of heart is willing 1 thing, the good. The only way to will 1 thing is to will the good, because every other object of the will is not a unity like the good is. Kierkegaard believed that the good is something that transcends the individual self and is connected to a higher, eternal reality. He argued that the only way to truly will one thing is to will this higher good, rather than our own self-centered desires and goals. People don't will the good because of weakness, indolence, and mediocrity. Another barrier is willing for a reward or to avoid punishment, which Kierkegaard believes is not the same because you are acting in your own interest, rather than for the purpose of doing good. (Intent vs action)
Explain Descartes' goal in the Meditations, and the method he takes in the First Meditation toward this goal.
The main purpose of the Meditations is to establish a firm foundation for the pursuit of knowledge and to demonstrate that the mind and the external world are distinct and separate entities. Descartes believes that this foundation is necessary in order to build a reliable and lasting edifice of knowledge, and that it can be achieved through a process of systematic doubt and reflection. Through the process of doubt, Descartes seeks to eliminate all beliefs that are not completely certain, in order to arrive at a set of indubitable truths that form the basis for further inquiry. He argues that these indubitable truths must be self-evident and cannot be doubted, and that they must be the starting point for any further investigation. These truths include the nature of the mind and body, the existence of God, and the possibility of certain knowledge. In the first mediation, he has resolved to disregard all things he thinks he knows and to start again from the foundations, building up his knowledge once more on more certain grounds. Descartes questions the most fundamental things possible, such as "Am I in this room right now, or am I dreaming?", "Is some malicious higher power deceiving me?" He does this because he must acknowledge every possible doubt in order to be certain of things.
How does Kierkegaard compare "the present age" to the "age of revolution"?
The present age is one of understanding, of reflection, devoid of passion, an age which flies into enthusiasm for a moment only to decline back into indolence. Weapons were freely given out during Revolutionary Ages ... but in the present age everyone is given clever rules and calculators in order to aid one's thinking. If any generation had the diplomatic task of postponing action so that it might appear that something were about to happen, even though it would never happen, then one would have to say that our age has achieved as mightily as the Revolutionary Ages. A Revolutionary Age is an age of action; the present age is an age of advertisement, or an age of publicity: nothing happens, but there is instant publicity about it. A revolt in the present age is the most unthinkable act of all; such a display of strength would confuse the calculating cleverness of the times.
Explain how Weil builds her list of human obligations based on a "model." What is the model, and how does the list of obligations derive from it?
Weil believes that obligations are eternal and universal. The obligation to help others in need when possible is the model Weil uses, based on an ancient Egyption notion that: Egyptians believed that no soul could justify itself after death unless it could say: 'I have never let anyone suffer from hunger.' No man is innocent if he possesses food in abundance and when finding someone on his doorstep three parts dead from hunger, he brushes past without giving him anything. Weil believes that this is the most basic obligation of humans, and she models the rest of the obligations corresponding towards human needs that are in the same realm of importance as hunger. These obligations are: to seek the truth, to be just, to love others, to work, and to be attentive. The obligations are social and are about how we affect others because we all need people to do these things for us.