Philosophy Midterm

Combined

- A comparison of Mackenzie with Plato, Aristotle and Martin Luther King, Jr. can be offered. Like Aristotle, she looks to this physical world for evidence. Mackenzie is like MLK and unlike Plato, in that imagination is paramount in understanding ourselves. The self is not a set given essence, as one might suggest of Plato and Aristotle's psyche. - But all four persons and philosophies look toward a goal of happiness for the entire community; though MLK and Mackenzie also include self-engagement for the good of the self and a hope that this would improve society for those previously disadvantaged groups. All are teleologically, i.e., see a future goal as the impetus for current activity.

1. (Reality and Knowledge) Describe Plato's allegory of the cave. Which features in it correspond to the divided line? (Be as particular as possible with regards to each detail in the allegory.) What does it imply about education?

- He explains how the metaphysical world is known. Thus, metaphysics and epistemology are related. This theory is given in the theory of the Divided Line. Educators have also used it as an illustration of the process of learning and education. - He asks us to imagine an underground cave. In this cave are humans with legs and necks chained from childhood in such a way that they cannot see anything but what is directly in front of them. They have never seen the light of day, nor anything besides the shadow projected on the wall. For them the shadows are the only real things and their ability to perceive them is the only way to know. - Yet unbeknownst to them, behind and above them is a fire, which sheds faint light on the wall of the cave in front of them. Between the fire and the prisoners is a path with a wall, behind which people raise puppets, making chatter as a puppet show. Since the prisoners cannot see one another nor the objects on the road behind them, they assume the shadows they see are truly connected to the sounds they hear. - These are real for the prisoners. These prisoners represent the majority of humanity. Most people will remain in a state of having opinions and images, imagining only shadows of reality and hearing only echoes of truth. Life is distorted by their chains of ignorance, which force them to see inadequately. The shadows could represent our imagination. - If one prisoner were freed by another and if he turned around, the light of the fire would blind him. Eventually he would grow accustomed to this new light and would see that the sights on the wall are just shadows of people and creatures with voices and sounds issuing from them. - Likewise he would see the chained prisoners. He would also see the fire for what it is, as the source of the shadows they once thought was real. - This conversion begins a journey to higher knowledge. It is marked first by a condition of blindness — a metaphor for the confusion of moving from one state of knowledge to a higher. Gradually adjusting to the new state, the man arrives in the state of believing, knowing in a new way of a new reality of sensible objects, which is now seen as having more goodness. - Both the above states are still knowledge of a changeable type of Δόξα (Doxa), that is, knowledge of a changeable sort, opinion. They are still located below the divided line and inside the cave. - Next the man sees an opening to the cave and is pushed up a steep a difficult pathway toward outside of the cave. Again he is blinded; the sun blinds him so much so that he must wait until night. Eventually his eyes adjust and sees in a new way visible things. He sees the world as it clearly is. - The mark of radical confusion moving out of the cave, which represents the radical change from knowledge of changeable things to unchanging knowledge of the unchangeable, intelligible realities. - The full light of day represents true knowledge, knowing, which knows the Forms that are always unchanging. The sun itself represents the source of the Forms, the Good, the source of all truth, reality and goodness. It is always beyond us. - Upon contemplating all the above process the man feels compelled and thus decides (moral obligation?) to move back into the cave to tell the other prisoners of the wonders seen. As the prisoner moves back down, he sees the old objects in the dull glow, but he knows now that it is not the whole reality or truth. - When he tells them they find him ridiculous. If he were to insist on freeing them, they would kill him. Plato intended to show that the progress of knowing is neither continuous nor automatic, but rather difficult and comes in spurts. - For him, the need to educate the youth occurs over long periods of time and is oftentimes arduous or difficult. But this isn't merely about knowledge or about reality; rather it is much broader. - They are stories to help us understand a way of life for a person that gives truth and reality and goodness, which is called Eudaimonia (happiness). Ultimately it is achieved in the transformation of the entire polis and this is the proper good of all. - Anything that is changeable for plato is not eternal, not needed. - Forms- that which is always exists in reality but beyond the physical life as well. - Outside the cave is becoming more real - Everyday life is changeable, not as true. But the eternal things stay the same. Therefore, more true, real, and good. IMAGE

5. Compare and contrast Aristotle and Nehamas on friendship (2)

- In contrast, On Friendship argues that Aristotle's idea of friendship needs clarification. While most would label only virtuous friendship as the true form of friendship, Nehamas wants to explore the negative ramifications of friendship. - Most would argue that the first two types of friendship are limited and can have negative consequences. First, this is not to say that friendships of pleasure and utility are only detrimental, for they are truly beneficial to the welfare of society. They are incomplete because they center on the respective goods or desires obtained rather than the good of the other. Likewise, they are short-lived and thus cannot sustain us throughout life. For these reasons they are limited. - Aristotle is wholeheartedly supportive of its merits both to the flourishing the society most importantly and subsequently to the individual. But Nehamas argues against Aristotle wholehearted endorsement of complete or virtuous friendship. - Nehamas argues that complete friendship is 'two-faced.' That complete or virtuous friendship is beneficial does not need to be explored further (it is a mirror of ourselves, involves truth and openness, sharing secrets, develops character), since we have seen its effects throughout history, but its negative face needs more nuance and reflection. - According to Nehamas philia is not a pure good. Rather than a necessary moral virtue, Nehamas will argue that is a necessary aesthetic virtue. This will allow us to see that it is not in of itself a pure good toward flourishing. - First, according to Nehamas, complete friendship is due to an attraction to admired and perceived attributes in another that move toward friendship than, as is the case for Aristotle, that we see objective virtues in each other which draws us closer. - Expands on the ambiguous, negative consequences of close friendships. The film, Thelma and Louise, illustrates the way their close friendship, i.e., complete friendship, leads to immoral choices as well as develops mature individuals. This dual-sided aspect of friendship can benefit the individual while at the same time be harmful to society. - Other examples show that complete friendship can be harmful to individuals while beneficial to society. Thus, it is not absolutely good in of its own right—but still desirable and necessary for happiness. Thus, Nehamas argues that it is an aesthetic good, not a moral good. We like our friends and describe their qualities, but at the same time, those qualities are shared by others, and yet these people are not our friends. - Like art, friendship is subjective and yet we all seem to desire friendship, for as Aristotle writes, who would want a life without friends. Friendships can end badly or make us bad and for this, reason Nehamas argues that friendship is neither rational nor moral/ethical. Still, it is necessary for identity and self-formation, but not co-extensive with the moral life.

4. Succinctly define and describe Aristotle's three types of friendship.

- The aims of friendships or love are labeled into three types: friendship of utility or usefulness, that of pleasure, and complete friendship that pursues goodness or virtuous life. Two seem inferior to complete friendship because of the motive. That is to say that the friendships of utility and pleasure do not regard friends as people but what they can give in return. The friendship of pleasure tends to be that of the young while the pleasure of utility is that of the old. And similarly, person and thing. Both types tend to be short-lived and easily broken. The majority of friendships have their aims set in this way. And yet, complete friendship seems also to develop from the previous two from a commitment or decision. Complete/virtuous- long lived, broken with emotional difficulty. - Complete friendship pursues the good for the other and regards friends not for what they can give in return, but instead regards friends for the sake of the other. This friendship is one of the few; it treats a friend as another self. Here, friendship is formed more from similarities of good character—likes attract. Such friendships are rare and develop with time. - While friendship consists in loving the other as another self, one must be able to love oneself to know how to love the other well. The marks of friendship are goodwill to the other and there is a sharing or mutuality of the friendship. The essence of friendship is in loving, more than being loved. - Having developed the means of the character of friendship, Aristotle now illustrates how friendship is also a means of expanding oneself and the community in order to develop to their highest self, the individual and the entire polis. Thus, the treatment of friendship mirrors the earlier treatment of moral virtues as the means toward the highest part of the self: the intellectual. Thinking or contemplation of wisdom is happiness. - (1) Friendship has to be mutual, reciprocal. (2) Wishing goods (wealth, happiness, what we consider for another as good) to other. Wishing good will. (3) Awareness of friendship. - Wishing well of the other for the other's sake that is mutual and known. - For their sake, not solely your own. - Can wish well, be mutual, and aware with the other 2 friendships but the complete one includes that but they strictly love the other person for themselves rather than something you can get out of them.

2. Briefly describe the way Plato, Heidegger, and Aristotle see the human person as an agent in the world.

Agency is the means to our goal in life. The capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Socrates' view was that when people become aware of good, they become incapable of choosing to think or act in a bad way. Plato agreed with this, and believed that knowing good makes it impossible to choose bad. This view suggests that people's choices are determined by their knowledge of good and evil. To choose eternal goods. Aristotle did not adopt the views of Socrates and Plato. In his view, people's minds are influenced by reason and desire/appetites. One can rationally determine an action to be bad, but the desire to perform the action. The person has the ability to choose between these conflicting influences and is thus free to choose good or bad behavior. Mind, body, and soul. To deny is to miss a part who someone is. Heidegger: Define everything universally is wrong. Finitude is what tells us what we prioritize in life and choose to do.

5. Compare and contrast Aristotle and Nehamas on friendship

Aristotle: - Aristotle completes his analysis of happiness as the goal of human life, moral and intellectual virtues are two means toward attaining that happiness. However, he concludes that the virtuous life is not entirely sufficient, for we are social persons as well. Friendship, then, is an additional component of the good life of happiness. - Friendship is wishing well of another person for his or her own sake when it is mutual and recognized; it takes time and familiarity. Aristotle is speaking of philia, so-called brotherly love. - Aristotle, in his usual methodology, categorizes the types of friendship according to their objects or aims. The aims of friendships or love are labeled into three types: friendship of utility or usefulness, that of pleasure, and complete friendship that pursues goodness or virtuous life. Two seem inferior to complete friendship because of the motive. That is to say that the friendships of utility and pleasure do not regard friends as people but what they can give in return. Both types tend to be short-lived and easily broken. The majority of friendships have their aims set in this way. And yet, complete friendship seems also to develop from the previous two from a commitment or decision. Thus, friendship is a state or a situated condition that involves decision and action. - Complete/virtuous- long-lived, broken with emotional difficulty. Complete friendship pursues the good for the other and regards friends not for what they can give in return, but instead regards friends for the sake of the other. - (1) Friendship has to be mutual, reciprocal. (2) Wishing goods (wealth, happiness, what we consider for another as good) to other. Wishing good will. (3) Awareness of friendship. - Wishing well of the other for the other's sake that is mutual and known. - For their sake, not solely your own. - Can wish well, be mutual, and aware with the other 2 friendships but the complete one includes that but they strictly love the other person for themselves rather than something you can get out of them. - Having developed the means of the character of friendship, Aristotle now illustrates how friendship is also a means of expanding oneself and the community in order to develop to their highest self, the individual and the entire polis. Thus, the treatment of friendship mirrors the earlier treatment of moral virtues as the means toward the highest part of the self: the intellectual.

Combined 3

Aristotle: Goal- eudimonia. Flourishing for the community. Public identity- seeking happiness for the good of others. - We're there to help each other become the best they can be. Plato: - Eudimonia. Goal- Flourishing for the community, but other worldly good. In physical world but do good for the eternal world. Mlk: Imagining is good. Immortal soul. Soul- made immortal by holding on to eternal truth. Soul- always immortal but good or bad punished or eternal good life. Mlk and Mack. Both like imagination. Mlk- identity and imagination to better society. Mack- To change self (social and personal).

2. (Identity/Agency) How do Plato and Aristotle differ on Ψυχή, psyche? Compare MLK's soul force with Mackenzie's idea of self. Explain the way Heidegger's notion of authenticity differs from these four on community, goal and eternal soul. (2)

Authenticity: - For Heidegger, being authentic does not require some exceptional effort or discipline, like meditation. Rather, it entails a kind of shift in attention and engagement, a reclaiming of oneself, from the way we typically fall into our everyday ways of being. It is about how we approach the world in our daily activities. This finding of itself Heidegger says, is a response to the voice or call of conscience. Differ: - A comparison of Mackenzie with Plato, Aristotle and Martin Luther King, Jr. can be offered. Like Aristotle, she looks to this physical world for evidence. Mackenzie is like MLK and unlike Plato, in that imagination is paramount in understanding ourselves. The self is not a set given essence, as one might suggest of Plato and Aristotle's psyche. - But all four persons and philosophies look toward a goal of happiness for the entire community; though MLK and Mackenzie also include self-engagement for the good of the self and a hope that this would improve society for those previously disadvantaged groups. All are teleologically, i.e., see a future goal as the impetus for current activity. Mack community: - But this process of self-exploration is not simply an internal self-contained process; our self is also contextualized by relationships and a community. Our responses are shaped by the responses of others and is bound up with social recognition. "We come to know and to define ourselves in our interactions with others," Mackenzie adds. (Adkins 291) Three types of social recognition are noteworthy for Mackenzie: moral/ethical respect, group identity, and personal relationships. Identity/soul: Plato/Aristotle: Community type of identity, nationality, gender MLK: Identity of who we are (individuality) what makes us who we are, what's important to us. Both use soul as the source of identity, both define it differently Plato: the soul is mortal unless you hold onto eternal truth MLK: Soul is immortal always. Even after death. Aristotle: Soul is not eternal. Plato: 3 parts to a soul. (Horse story) Reason Spirit Desire Aristotle: Soul is the whole person Soul is the cause of life that is noticed as activity Soul is not eternal. When a plant dies, its soul dies Causes us to be alive and do what we do as humans P/A community: P- Both Plato and Socrates witnessed the decline of the Athenian city-state. Plato focused on the human person in the context of radical change. He sought permanence in the face of unsettling change. This allegory of the Cave and analogy of the divided line are stories. They are stories to help us understand a way of life for a person that gives truth and reality and goodness, which is called Eudaimonia (happiness). Ultimately it is achieved in the transformation of the entire polis. A- But Aristotle asserts that there is one highest aim, happiness, and it must be the same as politics should have, because what is best for an individual is less beautiful and divine than what is good for a people (ethnos) or city-state (polis). Goal: Happiness for both. Flourishing eternally vs flourishing community in the physical world.

Explain the way Heidegger's notion of authenticity differs from these four on community, goal and eternal soul. D.P

Authenticity: - Being true to oneself. Do this by finding finitude; finitude is the way for authenticity. - What we really prioritize is important. - Not just me being authentic for myself but as a community and for the community. - Who we are. Eternal soul: -Mlk and Plato believe in eternal soul. - Mack doesnt mention soul, just self. - Heidegger is the same as Aristotle and Mack. Mortal. Community: - Mlk encourages each soul to fight for the community - Mack needs community for developing personal self. - Plato and Aristotle want Eudiamonia. Flourishing for the community. All for the good of the community. - Heidegger becoming an authentic person not just for the self but for the community and the good of the community Goal: - Mack's goal is the integrated self - Mlk wants equality for people. - Plato and Aristotle- eudimonia for both. (flourishing and doing good in the physical world) To reach eternal truth for plato and for aristotle in the physical world. - Heidegger's goal is becoming an authentic person for self.

Metaphysics:

Explanation- Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions: Ultimately, what is there? What is it like? Philosophers- Kant Significance of term for each philosopher: According to Heidegger, the fundamental question of metaphysics is "why are there beings at all instead of nothing?" From this fundamental question Heidegger extracts a prior question about the relation to Being; or "How does it stand with Being?" What is beyond the physical world? What we know, do, hope?

Polis

Explanation- Polis is a term that is used to describe a tight-knit, small community of ancient Greek citizens who agreed on certain rules and customs. Philosophers- Plato, Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: P- Both Plato and Socrates witnessed the decline of the Athenian city- state. Recall that all ancients saw life as integrally connected and defined by the polis. Plato focused on the human person in the context of radical change. He sought stability in the face of unsettling change. Eudaimonia (happiness). Ultimately it is achieved in the transformation of the entire polis and that is the proper good of all. A- But Aristotle asserts that there is one highest aim, happiness, and it must be the same as politics should have, because what is best for an individual is less beautiful and divine than what is good for a people (ethnos) or city-state (polis). Community.

Weltanschauung:

Explanation- a particular philosophy or view of life; the worldview of an individual or group. Worldview. Philosophers- Heidegger. Significance of term: Everyone has a unique worldview. And what is most unique and specific to us makes us a human person.

Agency

Explanation- agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Philosophers- Plato, Aristotle, (Heidegger?) Significance of term for each philosopher: Socrates' view was that when people become aware of good, they become incapable of choosing to think or act in a bad way. Plato agreed with this, and believed that knowing good makes it impossible to choose bad. This view suggests that people's choices are determined by their knowledge of good and evil. Aristotle did not adopt the views of Socrates and Plato. In his view, people's minds are influenced by reason and desire/appetites. One can rationally determine an action to be bad, but desire to perform the action. The person has the ability to choose between these conflicting influences, and is thus free to choose good or bad behavior.

Telos

Explanation- an ultimate object or aim. Goal Oriented living. Philosophers- Plato, Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: Telos that can be translated in various ways: goal, aim, purpose. Aristotle calls this the final cause—the goal that draws us toward it. Likewise, soul (ψυχή, psyche) is employed. These two concepts are operative in the human person not only as part of one's identity but also the way we can negotiate through the world. P/A: Both Plato and Aristotle saw that happiness (Eudaimonia) is the goal (telos) of life. Yet they differed in the way they understood the meaning of life and the best means toward happiness. While Plato saw that Forms, which are eternal and changeless, as the cause of all things true, real and good, Aristotle was dissatisfied with this explanation. Noticing all the varieties of plants and animals, he saw an internal principle. Eternal vs physical

Ethics

Explanation- moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. Philosophers- Heidegger (?), Plato, Aristotle If everyone is trying to figure it out, it must be important. Significance of term for each philosopher: P- This life's goal is to learn of the Forms so as to arrive there at end of one's life. Ethics is the central way to do this. Thus meaning is derived from Truth; one could say that Plato has a thought-based meaning structure and we are moral agents in this life. The virtues are the way toward happiness or in Greek eudaimonia. The virtues are unified- when someone has truly one, all the others follow necessarily. The just or completely virtuous person is the one whose soul is in harmony, because each of its three parts—Reason, Spirit, and Appetite—desires what is good and proper for it and acts within proper limits. Characteristically, for Aristotle, happiness is not merely a condition of the soul but a kind of right activity. The good human life, he held, must consist primarily of whatever activity is characteristically human. The good life is therefore the rational activity of the soul, as guided by the virtues. Aristotle recognized both intellectual virtues, chiefly wisdom and understanding, and practical or moral virtues, including courage and temperance. P/A: The final and best goal of life for humans is happiness, but more as a member of the polis, the city-state. While Plato placed that ultimate end outside of this world, Aristotle placed his goal in this life. For Aristotle the good that all living things aim is their own interior goal. This thinking is central to both Plato and Aristotle. We are drawn to our final goal of happiness through knowledge. The difference between the Plato and Aristotle lies in the fact that Aristotle viewed man as a being that brings itself from potency to act in accordance with a self-directed way in the physical world while Plato view the man following an eternal source.

Elenchus:

Explanation- the Socratic method of eliciting truth by question and answer, especially as used to refute an argument. Philosophers- Socrates Significance of term for each philosopher: S-Cross examining in the socratic method.

Finitude:

Explanation- the state of having limits or bounds. Philosophers- Heidegger. Significance of term: We can be defined and limited to what we know/try to know, what we do/try to do, and what we hope. Our non-capabilities are what are most important to us. Under our non-capabilities is finitude. Because we have limited time on earth, we value our time and prioritize things because we are infinite. We value life and why we do what we do/why we prioritize-because everything is not infinite.

Epistemology:

Explanation- the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Philosophers- Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: H- discovered that human beings are inherently world-bound. Humans inhabit a sociocultural environment in which the primordial kind of cognition is practical and communal, not theoretical or individual. Human beings interact with the things of their everyday world. P- Plato's epistemology holds that knowledge of ideas is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in the soul. Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere true opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless Forms. In The Republic, these concepts were illustrated using the metaphor of the sun, the analogy of the divided line, and the allegory of the cave. The Platonic theory of knowledge thus contains two parts: first, an investigation into the nature of unchanging objects and, second, a discussion of how those objects can be known through reason. In the cave, people see only unreal objects, shadows, or images. Through a painful intellectual process, which involves the rejection and overcoming of the familiar sensible world, they begin an ascent out of the cave into reality. That process is the analogue of the exercise of reason, which allows one to apprehend unchanging objects and thus to acquire knowledge. A- Knowledge is not innate. As he uses the term, the soul (psyche) of a thing is what makes it alive; thus, every living thing, including plant life, has a soul. The mind or intellect can be described variously as a power, faculty, part, or aspect of the human soul. Aristotle claims that "actual knowledge is identical with its object." When people learn something, they "acquire" it in some sense. What they acquire must be either different from the thing they know or identical with it. The existence of knowledge, for knowledge, which must be true and accurate, cannot deviate from its object in any way.

Meaning

Explanation- what is important or has a worthwhile quality to someone; gives a purpose. Philosophers- Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle. Significance of term for each philosopher: H- What we prioritize because we have limited time on earth. P- Eudaimonia. Beyond the physical world. A- Eudaimonia. Flourishing for the community.

Eudaimonia:

Explanation: Refers to a state of having a good indwelling spirit or being in a contented state of being healthy, happy and prosperous. In moral philosophy, eudaimonia is used to refer to the right actions as those that result in the well-being of an individual. Philosophers- Plato, Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: Both Plato and Aristotle saw that happiness (Eudaimonia) is the goal (telos) of life. Yet they differed in the way they understood the meaning of life and the best means toward happiness. While Plato saw that Forms, which are eternal and changeless, as the cause of all things true, real and good, Aristotle was dissatisfied with this explanation. Noticing all the varieties of plants and animals, he saw an internal principle. Eternal vs physical Aristotle would call the highest aim of humanity happiness or flourishing for the community. And also to equate this with both living well and doing things well.

Euporia:

Explanation: a feeling of well-being or elation especially. Finding the solution. Philosophers- Socrates Significance of term for each philosopher: Finding a solution in the socratic method. Closed door

(f)orm:

Explanation: a particular way in which a thing exists or appears; a manifestation. Philosophers- Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: Aristotle still struggled with the problems given to him from Plato: how can we explain change in a world that, if knowable, must have changeless truths. He found the changeless truth in nature. It could be said roughly that he placed Plato's Forms back into nature. Aristotle's form answers the question: "what is", e.g. "justice itself" as in Plato, but for Aristotle this so-called form it is always connected to its matter. In the case of a chair, Aristotle would phrase the answer in this manner: The form of the object before us is chair. Only in thought can one think of a chair without taking its matter with it. Aristotle's form is always imbedded in matter, never separated like Plato's Forms. Aristotle's stance to what is real and true and good always involves things in this world. Thus, the fact that Plato separates Forms as real from our visible world was wrong-headed for Aristotle.

Form:

Explanation: a particular way in which a thing exists or appears; a manifestation. Philosophers- Plato Significance of term for each philosopher: To know anything, it must be permanent in the midst of the changeable reality. The Forms or Ideas are most True. Any truth, if true, participates in a Form called "Truth itself." Justice and Beauty, etc. all have their own Forms. This living world is only the moving, changing (and thus imperfect) image of eternity. The real world, (eternal, good, true) according to Plato, is the world of unchanging presence. Form is common to all, universal, and not yet bound to any particular image or sense-perception. That which is always. Exists in reality but beyond the physical life as well. Anything that is changeable for plato is not eternal, not needed. Everyday life is changeable, not as true. But the eternal things stay the same, therefore true, real, and good.

Psyche/soul:

Explanation: essence of a living being. Are the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc. Philosophers- Plato, Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: Both use soul as the source of identity, both define it differently Plato: soul is mortal, unless you hold onto eternal truth. 3 parts to a soul. (Horse story) Reason Spirit Desire The desire, which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to enumerate them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by the ugly black horse on the left. The spirited, or hot-blooded, part, i.e., the part that gets angry when it perceives (for example) an injustice being done. This is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. (Note that Plato's use of the term "spirited" here is not the same as "spiritual." He means "spirited" in the same sense that we speak of a high-spirited horse, for example, one with lots of energy and power.) This element of the soul is represented by the noble white horse on the right. The reason, our conscious awareness, is represented by the charioteer who is guiding (or who at least should be guiding) the horses and chariot. This is the part of us that thinks, analyzes, looks ahead, rationally weighs options, and tries to gauge what is best and truest overall. Aristotle: Soul is the whole person Soul is the cause of life that is noticed as activity Soul is not eternal. When a plant dies, its soul dies Causes us to be alive and do what we do as humans 3 types of soul: - Plant. Vegetative soul. Activity of organism. - Animal. Sensate soul. Activity of sensing. - Human. Rational soul. Activity of reason. Rational soul takes over sensational and vegetative soul. We have one soul that takes over the rest. A lion would only have a sensate soul but would take over the metabolism soul. Aristotle sees the person as an act (it's our activities and decisions that makes us who we are). Soul is a function. Related to identity.

Aporia:

Explanation: impasse, difficulty in passage, lack of resources, puzzlement is a puzzle or state of puzzlement. Doubt Philosophers- Socrates Significance of term for each philosopher: Being confused in the socratic method Open door

Philia/friendship:

Explanation: often translated "brotherly love", is one of the four ancient Greek words for love: philia, storge, agape and eros. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, philia is usually translated as "friendship" or affection. Philosophers- Aristotle

Final cause:

Explanation: the purpose or aim of an action or the end toward which a thing naturally develops. Philosophers- Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: A- Directly related to ancient philosophy, in particular Plato and Aristotle, a major concept is that of the telos (τὲλος) that can be translated in various ways: goal, aim, purpose, and in this case, dream. Aristotle calls this the final cause—the goal that draws us toward it, as a metaphorical magnet. Likewise, soul (ψυχή, psyche) is employed.

Good will

Good will: Explanation: "virtuous." So when you wish someone well — when you feel friendly or compassionate — you have goodwill toward that person Philosophers- Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: A- Friendship/ wishing good will

Combined 2 mack

Human person Soul vs self (Mlk, Plato, Aristotle) (Mack) - essence -developed - given - not given good for all community - Universal - Unique + individual - Mlk and mack put imagination very high-valuable - Plato- very low So see who we are is to see who we are not. Must do so through imagining. 1 Self: 1. Self-conception-- reflection on the inside. 2. Values. 3. Point of view--looking at ourselves from the outside. +++ 2. Social concepts. Norms Public About class, gender, culture, nationality. Imagining allows us to live it. We can't do I without II ("do it" from others). Let me be as I really am. I+II= III. Integrated: - Self- knowledge - Self-worth - True account of self which includes public and private. Goal for Mackenzie: integrated self - Identity social and personal. Need social identity for making your personal identity. Need to have society behind you. - In order to imagine ourselves in a way and make that an actuality.

2. (Identity/Agency) How do Plato and Aristotle differ on Ψυχή, psyche? Compare MLK's soul force with Mackenzie's idea of self. Explain the way Heidegger's notion of authenticity differs from these four on community, goal and eternal soul.

MLK Soul force: - The idea of soul for MLK is clearly steeped in his Christian religious heritage; this differs from both Plato and Aristotle. It does, however, resonate with Plato's idea that the soul is immortal. Likewise, MLK's use of soul force (identity, power, strength) and non-violent action also could resonant with Plato idea of a just person cannot be harmed by an unjust person (given in contemporary language). Soul Force to us means learning how to live in peace and harmony instead of using violence to control others. - Yet, MLK understands that a dream or the use of imagination is a primary motivator and the initiator for the goals of enlightening the community for the sake of a group treated unfairly. MLK seems also to highlight emotions to persuade and inspire others. MLK use of speech is consistent with Aristotle's notions of rhetoric and courage in the face of danger. Hence, this use of rhetoric with 'soul force' is the primary way or agency to reach the goal—in this sense it is a moving cause (Aristotle's term). Mack idea of self: - Instead of the political liberal conception of the self as abstract subject, Mackenzie argues for relational models of autonomy and self that include self-conception, body, and points of view of race, family, class, and other values. As such the person is socially situated. - Mackenzie argues that imaginative thinking will liberate or constrain one's self-conception; hence, imaginative thinking develops a more robust concept of the person in reflective equilibrium of a triad tension: self-conception, point of view and values that includes the person's actions, thoughts and feelings. - In imaginative thinking we can reflect not only on our actions, but our thoughts and emotions to ourselves. We are both willing audience and detached observers of ourselves. While not foolproof, Mackenzie argues that this ability to imagine ourselves otherwise is a crucial feature of self-definition. - Mackenzie holds two intuitions shared with other analytic philosophers, one of whom is Frankfurt. The first is that our projects, cares, values, or critical interests guide the process of distinguishing our self-conceptions from our points of view. This means that our self-conception is distinguished from our points of view. At the same time there is a reflective assessment of certain aspects of ourselves. We may want to disassociate or condone an action. Second, these are simple maters of choice, that is to say, not simply voluntary. - But this process of self-exploration is not simply an internal self-contained process; our self is also contextualized by relationships and a community. Our responses are shaped by the responses of others and is bound up with social recognition. "We come to know and to define ourselves in our interactions with others," Mackenzie adds. (Adkins 291) Three types of social recognition are noteworthy for Mackenzie: moral/ethical respect, group identity, and personal relationships.

3. (Method and Meaning) Considering Plato, Aristotle, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Catriona Mackenzie on two registers: social/political identity and personal identity, compare and contrast their idea of telos /goal-oriented living. 2

Mack: - Instead of the political liberal conception of the self as abstract subject, Mackenzie argues for relational models of autonomy and self that include self-conception, body, and points of view of race, family, class, and other values. - Imaginative thinking develops a more robust concept of the person in reflective equilibrium of a triad tension: self-conception, point of view and values that includes the person's actions, thoughts and feelings. In imaginative thinking we can reflect not only on our actions, but our thoughts and emotions to ourselves - Mackenzie holds two intuitions: Our self-conception is distinguished from our points of view. At the same time there is a reflective assessment of certain aspects of ourselves. We may want to disassociate or condone an action. Second, these are simple maters of choice, that is to say, not simply voluntary. - But this process of self-exploration is not simply an internal self-contained process; our self is also contextualized by relationships and a community. Our responses are shaped by the responses of others and is bound up with social recognition. Three types of social recognition are noteworthy for Mackenzie: moral/ethical respect, group identity, and personal relationships. - A comparison of Mackenzie with Plato, Aristotle and Martin Luther King, Jr. can be offered. Like Aristotle, she looks to this physical world for evidence. Mackenzie is like MLK and unlike Plato, in that imagination is paramount in understanding ourselves. The self is not a set given essence, as one might suggest of Plato and Aristotle's psyche. But all four persons and philosophies look toward a goal of happiness for the entire community; though MLK and Mackenzie also include self-engagement for the good of the self and a hope that this would improve society for those previously disadvantaged groups. All are teleologically, i.e., see a future goal as the impetus for current activity.

3. What is the Socratic method? How did it originate? Describe its steps.

Method of finding an eternal truth through changeable opinions. Socrates questioned men about the views they held. This method is oftentimes called the Socratic method or the dialectic because he dialogued with others about their opinions, in Greek, doxen. It sought to find eternal truth from changeable opinions to reliably true opinions (endoxa). This method arose in response to the Oracle at Delphi (the voice of the god of truth), who answered no to the question: Is there anyone wiser than Socrates? Having doubted that he could be the wiser of all human, he sought evidence. After gather many opinions, and cross-examining by a series of questions, he came to the conclusion that the Oracle meant that Socrates was wise because he knew that he did not know, while others believed they knew when indeed they did not. This conclusion into a foreseeable resolution (euporia) that lead to an acceptably true opinion (endoxen). Steps: 1. Doubt (must always doubt to know the truth. Critical attitude). 2. Gather opinions- doxa. Changeable. 3. Cross-examination- elenches. 4. Confusion - aporia. If we aren't confused, we aren't looking for the answer. 5. Euporia- solution.

Opinion

Opinion: Explanation: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Philosophers- Plato, Aristotle (?) Significance of term for each philosopher: A- Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere true opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless Forms, or essences.

2. (Identity/Agency) How do Plato and Aristotle differ on Ψυχή, psyche? Compare MLK's soul force with Mackenzie's idea of self.

P+A I know. MLK- spirit, passion, strength to fight back. Mack- Mackenzie argues that imaginative thinking will liberate or constrain one's self-conception; hence, imaginative thinking develops a more robust concept of the person in reflective equilibrium of a triad tension: self-conception, point of view and values that includes the person's actions, thoughts and feelings. - In imaginative thinking we can reflect not only on our actions, but our thoughts and emotions to ourselves. We are both willing audience and detached observers of ourselves. While not foolproof, Mackenzie argues that this ability to imagine ourselves otherwise is a crucial feature of self-definition. - Mackenzie holds two intuitions shared with other analytic philosophers, one of whom is Frankfurt. The first is that our projects, cares, values, or critical interests guide the process of distinguishing our self-conceptions from our points of view. This means that our self-conception is distinguished from our points of view. At the same time there is a reflective assessment of certain aspects of ourselves. We may want to disassociate or condone an action. Second, these are simple maters of choice, that is to say, not simply voluntary. - But this process of self-exploration is not simply an internal self-contained process; our self is also contextualized by relationships and a community. Our responses are shaped by the responses of others and is bound up with social recognition.

Moving cause:

Philosophers- Aristotle Significance of term for each philosopher: Aristotle offers his general account of the four causes. This account is general in the sense that it applies to everything that requires an explanation, including artistic production and human action. Here Aristotle recognizes causes that can be given in answer to any why-question: formal, material, moving (efficient) and final causes. For Aristotle these causes can identity anything completely. Two causes explain what a thing is: formal cause (what is it) material cause (of what it is made) Two other causes are named to explain this: Moving cause, sometimes called efficient cause, is the primary source of the change or rest that brings about the change of things. Final cause is the ultimate purpose of the thing. Aristotle used the term, telos, to mean purpose, aim or goal of anything, e.g., He wanted to produce a fine work of art; the goal of an acorn is to mature into an oak tree, health is the goal of exercising, etc. This was an important concept for Aristotle who finally saw that everything moves from potentiality to actuality. For Aristotle the good that all living things aim is their own entelechy (embedded soul or embodied soul). This teleological thinking is central to Aristotle.

3. (Method and Meaning) Considering Plato, Aristotle, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Catriona Mackenzie on two registers: social/political identity and personal identity, compare and contrast their idea of telos /goal-oriented living.

Plato/Aristotle: Community type of idenitity, nationality, gender MLK: Identity of who we are (individuality) what makes us who we are, what's important to us. Plato and Aristotle: - Plato and Aristotle, a major concept is that of the telos (τὲλος) that can be translated in various ways: goal, aim, purpose, and in this case, dream. Aristotle calls this the final cause—the goal that draws us toward it, as a metaphorical magnet. Likewise, the soul (ψυχή, psyche) is employed. Eudaimonia in the eternal world vs eudaimonia in the physical world and flourishing as a community. Vs helping others in the community. - These two concepts are operative in the human person not only as part of one's identity but also the way we can negotiate through the world. This idea considers agency. How do we achieve happiness? This relation is at the heart of these concepts. One involves finding a path through day-to-day living that leads us to the goal we seek. The other considers what is us compels us to follow any given path. In other words, one investigates our inner motivations and the other finds practical ways toward the goal. Through this process, we also learn about our identity.

Notes from midterm friendship

Unlike Aristotle, Nehamas says friendship is not necessarily moral. Aesthetic value-pleasure. Closeness doesn't mean morality or ethical for the friendship. May be seen as good in their eyes but it's not truly or good for the community.

3. (Method and Meaning) Considering Plato, Aristotle, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Catriona Mackenzie on two registers: social/political identity and personal identity, compare and contrast their idea of telos /goal-oriented living. D.P

Who am I by the way of soul. Plato and Aristotle: Identity in an Athenian sense. Part of this community, make it personal. Put their social identity more important and it makes their personal identity. Mack: Community is the problem. Individual identity- self knowledge is important to find us as a person; however, can't do that without engaging society and social identity. Mlk: - Community of believers. - Each person has their own soul and identity and they do good for a better of community and the social identity. Goal: - Mack's goal is the integrated self - Mlk wants equality for people. - Plato and Aristotle- eudimonia for both. (flourishing and doing good in the physical world) To reach eternal truth for plato and for aristotle in the physical world.