Philosophy

Unity of opposites

opposites but unified in some way can't be one without thte other

forms

quite distinct and different from things we perceive in the material world: forms are always only one thing never hteir opposites, forms aren't perceptible they are intellible and abstract entities. Although there are many htings that in some sense share in a form there is always just one form in which they share insofar as they instantiate the form

relativism

protoras moral values are determined by people attitudes

types of answers

real definitions: propositions which give the essence of the thing to be defined conceptual definitions: true propositions about the thing to be defined known by anyone who understands the relevant concept true factual claims: which identify the phenomenon plato does not distinguish things in exactly this way. Clearly distinguishes between real definitions and true factual claimes but not quite from conceptual definitions

Structure of Parmenides poem

the proem the way of truth the way of opinion

Heraclitus famous doctrines

the unity of opposites, the flux doctrine, fire is the source and nature of all things

Xenophanes two principle philosophical topics

theology and epistemology

Democritus main idea

there are smallest indivisible bodies from which everythign else is composed atoms move in an infinite void and space

What is the tension in Socrates' disavowal of knowledge

Claims to know nothing but makes claims to how to live a good life

How does Aristotle reject the possibility that pleasure is the human good?

It isn't distinctively human

Menos 2nd definition of virtue

the ability to rule over people

What challenge does the story of Gyges and his ring pose for Socrates/Plato?

The only reason to be just is derived from social consequences. (just is a good only in the consequences it gains one)

Choice of rulers the myth of metals book 2

a noble lie to persuade the rulers or (if not them) than the rest of hte city that the people we choose in this way should rule a religious sotry to make people accept hteir and others postiion i nthe city when people are made GOd inserts metal into the soul so tests aren't meant ot find merits for rulers but which has which metal and htat is how god picked who did what

Affinity argument basic ideas

argues soul is more like forms than like perceptible, material things and so it is just like the forms less sub. to destruction forms: intelligible,imperishable,imperceptible, simple perceptible things not intelligible perishable complex

Socrates refutation to Thrasymachus Book 1

argues that this view is inconsistent with what he (socrates) thinks is the correct view of what an art/craft is. says ruling is an art/craft and as such (i.e. as any other art/ craft( it aims at ensuring the best possible state of whatever it is concerned with consequently true rulers seek the good of their subjects ( the weaker), not their own

two candidates of happiness

book 1-9: happiness is an inclusive endi t includes activites of all virutes spread over lifetime book 10: happiness is an exclusive end it consists of activies of contemplation

WHat does the changer do

the chagner introduces hte new property aristotle epresses this idea by saying that hte changer introduces a form aristotelian forms are best understood as acutal properties of thigns as such they only exist in things so when a substances a thigni s taking on a new property it is tkaing on a new form.

Zeno and the Dichotomy

no movement because must reach midpoint before end, infinite amount of midpoints

spirit and reason book 2

no the same as reason

Is socrates clear about the what is f quesiton

not always. the answers to what is shape sometimes look like definitions of essence althought the way he asks this looks like a type 2 quesitons ( what is the name to which the word shape applies)

non accidental particulars (primary substances)

not said of and not in others socrates aristotle this plant

accidental particulars

not said of but in others the particular paleness that socrates now has

Thrasymachean theory of hte nature and origins of justice book 2

to do injustice is naturally good to suffer injustice is naturally bad the badness of suffering injustice far eceeds hte goodness of doing it. agreement neither to do nor to suffer injustice just and lawful is what covenants and laws, aim at maintainign hte agreement prescribed

4th defintion of virtue

virtue is to have hte power to acquire good things

In what way is justice good, according to Plato (as opposed to Socrates' interlocutors)?

For itself and its consequences

According to Plato, what are the basic constituents of reality? What are their key characteristics?

Forms, which are intelligible, simple, imperishable, and imperceptible. They exist in a "realm of forms," not in the perceptible world.

Socrates refutation to second definition

If is liked by the Gods, is pious. If X is hated by the gods, X is impious The gods disagree about what is just nad unjust, beautiful and ugly, good and bad each god likes what he considers just beautiful or good and hates what he considers unjust ugly or bad some XX's are both liked by the gods and hate by the gods. Therefore some 's are at the same time both pious and impious This can't be truce so the definition is rejected

What is Aristotle's account of human function?How does Aristotle get from his account of the human function to the account of the human good?

Function=characteristic activity, humans are rational animals. The human function is to reason and to act in accord with reason, the human good is to do this well.

Empedocles and Democritus: How did they react to Parmenides? What were the basic constituents of reality according to their theories?

Reaction to Parmenides: They are not thinking about coming to be and passing away correctly. Nothing comes to be or perishes, but is formed from existing things and dissolved into them. Basic constituents of reality: Empedocles: 4 elements: water, air, earth, fire, and two opposing forces: love and strife. Democritus: Atoms- the smallest indivisible bodies from which everything else is composed. These atoms move in an infinite and void space.

potentiality

the ability of something to take on an ew property: john, who is anative speakder of english, can learn spanish. THe new property knowledge of spanish A hite house can be painted greed the new property being green an alligator that is completely sitll and at rest can suddenly move very quickly the new property motion

wisdom in the city

the city is wise in virtue of its knowledge that involves deliberation about hte city as a whole and about how its internal relations nad its relations with other cities will be the best possible the knowledge of rulers: rulers decide what makes city as a whole good, good rulers amke city wise

Actuality

the completed exercise of an ability to take a new property the actual possession of the property john who is a native speaker of neglish learnt spanish. He went from potentialy knowing spanish to actually knowing it

Flux theory

the current/waters are constantly changing and so once an individual sets foot in the river, it is impossible to step foot in the same water due to its continuous flow. There is even an objection that you can't even step in the same river once because of all the different things the water carries such as animals, bacteria, etc. - The cosmos, and everything in it, is in a state of eternal change. This is illustrated by the claim because those stepping into the river for a second time have both grown/changed and the water has changed, even though he is the same person and the river is the same river.

the function argument

the formal criteria will help us decide whether what we find is a good candidate for happiness but how are we to go about finding what it is remember fianl cuase is what a thing is for in virtue of what it essentially is. If happiness if hte final cause of a human being it will depend on what a human being essentially is. WE know human beigns are rational animals but how to proceed form that point Aristotle suggests that we do so by attending to what he clas function ergon and more specificallybby attending ot the human function

2 major themes of phaedo

the immortality of the soul the nature and function of the forms

What does Heraclitus mean when he says allthigns are one

the kosmos wasn't made but has always been: an everliving fire, fire is everything when it turns it becomes sea, then half earth half fierty waterspout, fire is everything

Primary substances

things that are not said of anything and are also not in anythig -concrete particulars: an individual man or a horse - a primary substance is a particular ( not said of anything that is not accidental it is not in anything - they do not depend on their existence and on being what htey are on anything else. Thus the reversal of Plato's view

the main idea of the recollection argument

there are some things we know which we could not have learned form experienc since the objects of this knowledge aren't observable at all. But we use this knowledge to classify eperience so we must have learned them before we started to perceive. So our sould must hav eisted before we were born.

Socrates decides to employ a method that does not make use of the senses (99e): it is an a priori method. The result?

there are such things as Forms and the only proper reason why any thing has any property is that it participates in the relevant Form. For example, if a thing is beautiful, that must be because it participates in the Form of Beauty (in Beauty itself).

THe analysis of change house example

there is a material - the bricks this material acquires a certain form- the house this form has been introduced ot or actualized in the bricks by the builder. THe builder must posses the form ( a blueprint) a house is a composite of matter ( bricks and from (house form)

Intuitions about happiness htat oncern the content

they are aobut what it is that makes life good: pleasure: doens't equal happiness but happiness might include pleasure honor: honor depends on others but happiness come form oneself people who seek honor are seekingself esteem wealth: same as pleasure knowledge: if have and don't have use of it no happiness

Ring of Gyges of Lydia book 2

they do not in fact act justly for its own sake; shows that anyone owuld act unjustly if he or she could get away with it

auxiliaries book 2

they need to adopt the good of hte city as what their craft aims at and adopt the rulers view of that good. defenth e true interests of hte city as these are detemined by the rulers ( honor)

In Meno, what evidence does Socrates give that we recollect knowledge?

Socrates asks a slave-boy questions until he comes to know—on his own, Socrates suggests—a mathematical truth

How does Socrates decide to look for justice in the city?

Socrates decides to find temperance, courage, and wisdom in the city first and then whatever is left must be justice.

How does the theory of recollection function as a response to the paradox of inquiry?

The paradox says that inquiry is pointless or impossible. But if through inquiry you can recollect the answer, then inquiry is possible and fruitful

Once Socrates has an account of justice in the city, how does he proceed to look for justice in the individual?

The soul has 3 parts like the city: - spirited (courage) - temperance (appetite) - wisdom (reason) The qualities of the city come from the individuals themselves when they act according to how they should and they strive to do that job well Thinks it's reasonable to think that there is something in one's soul that makes one spirited,appetitive, and wise.

justice in the soul question and reasoning book 2

does hte sould have 3 parts that play similar roles to 3 classes in theciyt? the qualities of the city come from individuals: spiritedness comes form spirited individuals, etc. therefore it is reasonable ot thingk that htere is osmehting in ones sould that makes on spirited, temperate, wise and etc eitehr do thigns as a whole or parts in sould osthat some part of soul does something similar to city

Formal charges against socrates

does not recognize the traditional gods of hte city-state (polis) and introduces new divinities

In Aristotles time there were basicaly two theories of the soul

dualism((plato)- soul is an immaterial immortal entity which is distinct form the body materialism(presocratics)- they saw human beingi n material terms and eplain all perception thinking nad desiring as pmaterial processes only

rulers book 2

they need to identify the good of hte city as their own good and they need to possess the knowledge of what is in fact good for hte city. rule the city in virtue of hteir knowledge of what is truly good and bad for it (truth)

Aristotles objection to hte presocratin philosophers

they only concentrated on the material cause when htey tried to explain natural phenomena

accidental universlas

thigns that are said of and are also in somethign else knowledge paleness the universal paleness is said of mzany primary substances but is only accidental to them can only take place of a predicate

2 interpretations of unity of opposites

things have opposing qualities at all time things have opposing qualities at different times

Accidental particulars

things that are not said of anyhign but are in something else - an individual piec of grammatical knowledge or the particular paleness of socrates these entitites depend on their existence on the primary substances in which they are socrates paleness cannot eist wihtout socrates in fact we canno refer to them in any other way than by referencing hte substance that has them

secondary substance

things that are said of but are not in something else these are universals ( human animal cat) they are essential characteristics ofh tep rimary substances they are also kinds ot which the primary substances belong

4 options for the categories

things that are said of otehrs universal things that aren't said of others particulars things that are in others accidental things that aren't in other non-accidntal

how did we acquire this a priori knowledge about equality

we learn what things are by acquaintance with paradigm examples so we must have been acquainted with a clear example of equality that was not also an example of unequality hence we mush have come into contact with an example of this sort but since the only example is equality itself and it is imperceptible our sould must have existed before we were born when they were not bound to perceptible world by the body and could have had cognitive access to equality itself

According to socrates the criteria which a proper answer to hte question what is f must satisfy?

must be a single definition that covers all cases of F definition needs to explain what makes something that is f, f.

skepticism

no objective moral values and even if there were some how ould we know what they are?

nonaccidental universal versus particular

nonaccidental universal will be the non accidental things understtod in a way that instances could fit under them like a category i.e. humans mammals oaks non accidental particular is an instance of sucha universal so socrates that oak etc

reply to objection of 2nd definition of virtue

virtue is no merly the ability to rule over people but rather in the ight sort of awy justly or moderatly

3rd definition of virtue

virtue is to desire beautiful things and to have the power to acquire them

5th definition of virtue

virtue is to have hte power to acquire good thigns in some virtuous way

unity of the city book 2

want city as a whole to be happy not individual groups form ost being corrupt doesn othing to city but for guardians if htey aren't what htey seem they will destoy the city admits rulers and guardians are unhappy but what htey do makes the city happy in turn making htem happy

Hylomorphism

all primary substances ( human, dog, and so on). are composed otwo aspects matter(hyle) and form (eidos or morphe)

All change is characterized by the acquistion of loss of a form. There are two kindso forms that can be acquired or lost in a change

an accidental form: this kind ochange is alteration etc a substantial form this form corresponds to a secondary substance human dog and so on this kind of chage is generation or destruction of a primary substance

Notice

an objects potentiality is always grounded in some actuality JOhn has hte potentiality to learn spanish but he has this potentiality because he has actually rational mind A dog cannot learn spanish- it has no such potentiality. What a potentiality is is defnied by what it is for-by its end

Parmenides on change

argued that change is impossible because it is not intelligible; we can only speak or think aobut what is but to hthink or speak of change requires thinking or speaking of what is not as well

zeno on hcnage

argued that changed is impossible because it is not intelligible; his paradoxes show that hte idea of change or motions is inconsistent

2 Interpretations or flu theory

aristotle: so in flux that can't step into river once If stayed the same wouldn't be a river is a river because it always changes

Physics

aristotles investigation of nature nature: an inner principle of change and rest understanding the nature of anything requires understanding of aristotles conception of change

what was thales interested in

astronomy predicting the eclipse of 585 BCE (thought to occur because of the moon coming to be in front of the sun

Can you explain the meaning of the phrases "being said-of" and "being in"?

- Any being (thing) is either said of another or is not said-of another. (universal or particular) - Any being (thing) is either in another or is not in another. (accidental or essential)

What does Socrates thing Thrasymachus things Book 1

on socrates view thrasymachus thinks of justice as something imposed by rulers on those wheom they rule as part of their activity of ruling

Extreme injustice book 2

one is completely injust and acts unjustly but maintains reputation of a just man.

What are the primary constituents of reality, for Aristotle?

primary substances

plato thinks that there is something innate but what

propositions (2+2=4) concepts (God) ability (language) In meno it appears that he htings all knoledge is innate,e but he probably didn't think that

Zeno and the achilles

slowest will never be caught by quickest pursuer must first reach the point from which it departed so slower must always be come distant in front.

objection to 3rd definition of virtue

socrates argues that all desire is only for good things and that everythign beautiful is good. Hence everyboy desires beautiful things

Defense against implicit charges

socrates denies every inquiring into natural phenomena he denies he has knowledgee of hte human excellence he has never claimed to be able to teach it.

ambiguity in the paradox

socrates doens't know who is hte wisest of all men the oracle at delphi knows who is hte wisest of all men socrates knows that hte oracle at delphi knows who is the wisest of all men, but he has not asked the oracle F: diogenes is hte wisest of all men - a) socrates knows what hte oracle knows - b) what hte oracles knows = f - c) socrates knows f sense 1: in a what the oracle knows menas what quesiton she can answer so 3 is true in the paradox but 2 is not sense 2 in band c what the oracle knows means f so 2 is true in the paradox but 3 is false

Defense against formal charges

socrates employs elenshus in a discussion with meletus: unlike in any other case where there are eperts with regards to young athenians all adult athenians but socrates are eperts in impring the youth socrates argues that either he corrupts the young deliberately which is impossible or not in which case he is not to be tried no one wishes bad things for themself always want good things for oneself problem of will only responsible if it was intentional this raises quesito nif teachers are responsible for students

Whats wrong with the first definition of piety

socrates impious because introduces new gods so this definition doest define piety has confused enumeration with definition in other words if asked what a dog is you can't say lassie

implicit charges against socrates

socrates is guilty of wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below hte earth; he makes the worse into the stonger argument, and he teaches the same things to others 1. socrates is a physiologist 2. socrates is a sophist

Is socrates confused aobut what is f

socrates thinks that the only way in which one can identify what f signifies ibs by knowing hte essence of it. It is only when one knows that one thing inf that makes all cases of f and only f that one knows an identifcatory accound of what f signifies perhaps socrates thinks that names signify essences, so he concluded that any account ofwhat a name signifies must specify the essence of the thing signified

REsults of discussion in meno

some knowledge that we have is independent of experience - we have this knowledge simply in virtue of being well functioning human beings - this kind of knowledge in philosophy is called a priori. In contrast knowledge that we acquire thorught eperience is called a posteriori generally speaking two kinds of propositions are thougt the be candidates for a priori knowledge - necessary propositions: can't be false contingent can be false - analytic propositions: logical format that guarantees that htey are true synthetic lack this form platos thesis there are necessary propositions and these must be known a priori

Aristotle definition of soul

that in virue of which something is alive ( so much is agreed by materialists and dualistts) Aristotle observes there must be different kinds of sould: nutritive soule perceptual soul rational sou

Why could one say that elenchus is a "negative" project/procedure?

Doesn't produce definitions, only criticizes and rejects suggested definitions

1. Aristotle thinks that people have various intuitions about what happiness is. What are some of these intuitions insofar as the content of happiness is concerned? Why does Aristotle reject them?

- they are about what it is that makes life good: Pleasure: for the sake of happiness doesn't meet completeness; One can also have pleasure, but what if one causes suffering to one's fellow citizens, doesn't fulfill self sufficiency Honor: for the sake of happiness doesn't meet completeness; one can have honor but what if the lives of one's children are miserable, doesn't fulfill self sufficiency Wealth: for the sake of happiness doesn't meet completeness Knowledge: for the sake of happiness doesn't meet completeness They are concerned with the content of happiness, but do not satisfy all of the forms of completeness, self-sufficiency, and separateness.

Is the Paradox concerned with just any kind of inquiry, or is it (perhaps) constrained to some particular questions? How would constraining the Paradox to such questions solve the problems with the Paradox?

-Paradox: inquiry is pointless or impossible. One either knows it before inquiry (no need for inquiry), or does not know it, thus would not know it if one found it. - Constrained to particular questions: The paradox is not concerned with empirical questions (Ex. Who is at the door) because they can be found through observation. But, particular non-empirical questions involve the paradox because non-empirical answers cannot be observed (Ex. What is morality?)

Name the parts of the city and the virtues it can have.

-craftsmen, auxiliary, rulers -courage, wisdom, temperance, justice (explain)

Explain Aristotle's four causes

1. Material = The matter of something 2. Formal = The defining structure of something 3. Efficient = What is responsible for imposing some form on some matter 4. Final = What a thing is for, in virtue of what it is

aristotle reported atomoist argument about divisibility

1 suppose magnitude is infinitely divisible 2 if 1 then nothing prevents it from having been divided at every point. so lets suppose that it is so divided 3. what would remain after division? - a. if answer is some etended particles than division isn't complete - b. if answer is nothing then question is how an extended magnitude could be composed from no extension c. a and b aren't possible 4. magnitude can't be infinitely divisible

Socratic method Elenchus

1 the interlocutor assers a thesis p which socrates considers false and targets for refutation 2. socrates secures agreement ot further premises say q and r ( each of which ay stand for a conjunct of propositions) these are not argued ofr by socrates 3. Socrates then argues and hte interlocutor agrees that p and q and r entail a contradiction 4. socrates claims that he has shown that p is false

What is Aristotle's doctrine of the four causes (or kinds of explanations)? Can you explain all four kinds of causes?

1. Material cause: the matter of x. In this case: marble (that out of which a thing is made). 2. Formal cause: the defining structure of x. In this case: the shape of the statue (what a thing is). 3. Efficient cause: what is responsible for putting or imposing the form on the matter. In this case, the sculptor in virtue of his having the form (the blueprint) of the statue in his mind (the source of change). 4. Final cause: what a thing is for in virtue of what it essentially is. In this case, honoring the god Hermes (for the sake of which).

How could the soul be immaterial but not immortal?

1. Soul exists before we are born, but doesn't last forever (soul as "weaver") 2. Soul is product of how our bodies are organized (soul as "harmony")

What kind of desirable things, or good things, does Glaucon distinguish? Why does he do it? Three kinds of goods:

1. Things desirable only for their own sake. (middle class) Ex: smelling flowers it is desirable because it is pleasant but does not serve any purpose 2. Things desirable only for their consequences. (lowest class) Challenged Socrates to defeat this Ex: medicine. People take medicine in order to get healthy when they are sick. But medicine is not desirable to take on its own sake. 3. Things desirable both for their own sake and for their consequences. (highest class) Ex: knowledge, sight. With knowledge for it own sake, you can just to know things because it creates a sense of confidence without consequences. Knowledge for your own consequences, is acquiring knowledge to get a job, for money. Essentially a means to an ends. Glaucon argues Justice belongs to the lowest class definition ( only consequences) and wants Socrates to prove that it belongs to the highest class.

menos paradox

1. You either know or do not know what you are looking for 2. If you know what you are looking for, inquiry is unnecessary 3. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible 4. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible

Socrates Reply to Cebes and Simmas

1. one and the same explanation is used to explain incompatible phenomena 2. the same phenomena is explained by incompatible or opposite explanation 3. explanations are given that are neither sufficient nor necessary e.g. why do we grow? because we eat 4. Explanations in the style of Anaxagoras and others do not explain why is it best for things to be this rather than some other way. They remain at the level of material explanations and do not provide teleological explanations.

What is F (platanoic type 1)

1. should specify one form which all virtues possess should specify the one form by being which all virtues are virtues generally what is f an account of hte essence of a thing signified by f

Basic idea of cyclical argument

1. things always come from their opposites: - example: if a cup of water becomes hot it must have been cold before - examples: if a cup of water becomes cold, it must have been hot before - similarly, if one has come to be dead, one must have lived before - what happens if you think about green though? whats the opposite? 2. so if one has come to be alive one must have been dead before 3. this means he says that our would must have existed before we were born. Since they were separated from the body as they will be after we die, we can be described as having been dead.

Three Kinds of goods Book 2

1. things desirable only for their own sake 2. things desirable only for their consequences 3. things desirable for both their own sake and their consequences

Why does socrates put forth an a priori method?

1.An explanation of this sort does not violate the following rules: -Two opposite causes cannot have the same effect. (If a thing is beautiful it is so because of the Form of Beauty only!) -The same cause cannot have opposite effects. (The Form of Beauty can only make things beautiful). -This is because of the peculiar properties of the Forms: they are always only one thing and never their opposites.

Anaximander Accomplishments

1st map of the world, geometry, predicting an earthquake

Empedocles zoogony

1st theory of evolution, way animals and plants are now isn't the way they have always been. thinks originally organs wandering around would bump into each other and become beings sometimes badly combined only those combined will survive

empedocles on forms

4 elements meet criteria and 2 forces

Empedolces on nature

4 elements: fire air earth and water basic mix create everything 2 opposing forces love and strife always present always act in same way. love attracts elements together, strife separates elements most ecept 4 elements but not 2 forces

Socrates refutation to definition 3

A) If the pious is love by the gode because it piouso r B is it pious becaut is loved by the gods? If A: then we can stil lask what it is that makes things pious i.e. what it is about htem th te gods love. and that owuld be hte definition and an answer to what is piety If b then we can stll ask why gods love those things. If they have a reason that isi f there si something htat makes them love those itns thne htat andnot heir love ould make those hitngs pious. If they do not have a reason for lovin them then gods love things for no eason and hence they are irrational

What is the difference between an alteration and a substantial change?

Alteration: accidental change Substantial change: new form

How do the notions of potentiality and actuality figure in his analysis?

An object's potentiality is always grounded in some actuality. What a potentiality is defined by what it is for - by its end. Examples: John has the potentiality to learn Spanish. But he has this potentiality because he has, actually, a rational mind. A white house can be painted green. But it can be so painted because it is actually a solid colored object that can absorb paint. A dog cannot learn Spanish - it has no such potentiality. A lake cannot be painted green - it has no such potentiality. And a rock cannot suddenly move - it has no such potentiality. • Change is always directional. • Change ceases when the potentiality has become fully actualized. • In order to understand what a given change is, we need to understand what it is directed towards, i.e., what the end or goal of the change is. • Potentialities can only be understood by reference to end states for which they are potentialities.

2. How does Aristotle's theory of substances and accidental properties in the Categories help him to answer Parmenides?

Aristotle's concept of substance as distinct from accidental properties enables Aristotle to analyze change and launch a project of scientific investigation of nature despite objections in the Parmenidean style.

Did Xenophanes introduce any new ideas of divinity?

Developed a 'cloud astrophysics' in order to explain the heavens. Argues that the earth is broad, extending downward indefinitely, blocking the view that the sun travels under the earth

Why is it problematic if your definition of piety leads Socrates to ask the question "Is it pious because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is pious?"

Either you're not giving a definition of piety, or your definition is problematic

Anaximander Theories

Explained meteorological phenomena in terms of natural causes Origin of animals: from warmed up water and earth emerge either fish or entirely fish like animals. Inside animals men took form and embryos held prisoner until puberty; animals burst open men/women come out able to feed themselves. Cosmology: Earth flows free i nhte middle without falling says Earth stays still because of similarity since placed in middle can't mofe; plurality of worlds All life came from nonorganic material Apeiron is the source of everything, indefinite and boundless. Becomes something hot and cold. Hot and cold act on each other generating stuff. Not an element it is Apeiron, everything comes to be from it. When perish go back to Apeiron. No origin, but is the origin of everything. Earth is not supported by anything. Its at rest because it is equal distance from everything. Vents where the stars appear. When vents are blocked an eclipse occurs.

How does Aristotle get from his account of the human function to the account of the human good or happiness? What is this account?

Function= characteristic activity. Humans are rational animals, and the human function is to reason and act in accordance to this reason. The human good is to do this well.

Intellectual background for socrates

Greco Persian wars 599-449 B.C.E. Greece is on the offensive especially the Delian league led by athens 448-430 tiem of athenian hegemony pelopnnesian war 431-404 B.C.E end with the defeat fo athens by sparta 404-3 back lash against democracy in athens the rule of thirty tyrants sparta military didictatorship with 2 kings 403 democracy restored backlash against people associated iwth the tyrants or in general thought to be somehow responsible for defeat of athens by the time socrates was 20, was with persia over and athens enters into impoerial height of power lasts 20 years than war with sparta begins. At the end athens is on its knees democratic era of imperial athens brought with ti a new need education of a special sort one htat would enable one to ecel in politics military as well as private or business affairs.

Xenophanes critique of popular religion

Homer and Hesoid gave Gods attributes that are frowned upon in men. E..g. theft adultery, mutual deceptions. We think Gods are born wear clothes and speak like us. We describe gods to look like us. Animals would draw figures of Gods that look like them. Xenophanes criticized that Gods were said to have committed common vices. claimed that there was a supreme non-anthropomorphic god, who controls the cosmos by thought. There is only one supreme being, not many gods. -Rejected divine significance and claimed that no divine communication to human beings -The human realm of knowledge is limited by what can be observed. - Raised possibility of sure and certain knowledge. Humans are satisfied with either belief or opinion, but must have evidence. Xenophanes criticized the belief that god is humanlike, with a voice and body. He believed that it is difficult for people to really know things.

Parmenides: what are the consequences of asserting about something that '[it] is'? What is his argument for denial of the generation and perishing of anything that 'is'?

If something 'is', then it must always be. If something 'is not', then it cannot be and never has been. Also, if something 'is', then it never 'was' or 'will be' (it will never change, because then it 'would not be', and nothing that 'is' can ever 'not be'). Arguments: 1. What is must be ungenerated: 1) What-is-not cannot be (and cannot be thought of). 2) If it comes to be, it comes to be from what-is-not (for it would not need to come to be if it already was). 3) But since what-is-not cannot be, nothing can come to be from it. 4) So, it does not come to be (nothing that truly "is" comes to be). 2. What is cannot perish: 1) What-is-not cannot be (and cannot be thought of) 2) If it passes away, it passes away into what-is-not (for it would not need to pass away if it already was not). 3) But since what-is-not cannot be, nothing can pass away into it (since that cannot be). 4) So it does not pass away (nothing that truly "is" passes away).

What kinds of change does Aristotle distinguish?

In alteration we have a substance (a thing) that has a potentiality of some sort. This potentiality is being actualized during the change until the substance actually acquires the property for which it had the potentiality. The substance is the subject of the change. But what a change in which a new substance comes to be, or an old thing perishes? What will that come from or what will it perish into? And what will be the subject of such a change? In order to understand this, we need one more concept - matter.

Explain the case of a builder making a house out of bricks in terms of the potentiality and actuality involved.

In the beginning the bricks were actually bricks with the potentiality of a house. Then the potentiality was actualized by the builder by constructing the house.

How does Aristotle propose that we analyze all functions of the soul?

In the same way as relating form and matter, specifying the four causes.

Epistemology Xenophanes

No one will ever know about Gods or anything else. Even if you say a true thing, you wont know it, it will just be an opinion. Gods didn't tell us everything from the beginning. Will know when gods decide its time for us to know. Overtime you will discover better beliefs.

What does socrates answer have to include in book 2

Thrasymachean theory: not only what justice is but also what the rational for it is socrates has to provide a competing account but also one that proceeds ffrom some common ground so he needs to show how formation of society is based on some principles to which Glaucon et al would agree yet leads to justice of a quite different kind.

How is, according to Socrates, temperance, courage, and wisdom present in the city?

Wisdom is represented when the rulers have knowledge "about the city as a whole, and about how its internal relations and its relations with other cities will be the best possible" basically when the rulers have the good of the city in mind Courage is represented when the auxiliaries protect the city without abandoning it despite pains, pleasures, or other appetites Temperance is present when there is an agreement between the 3 classes of who should rule and who should be ruled. It is the mastery of pleasure and appetites of the masses.

What is impossible/paradoxical about walking to a stadium, according to Zeno?

You would have to perform an infinite number of actions

objection to 4the definition of virtue

but is it not a virtue only when the good things are acquired justly or moderatly or piously?

objection to 2nd definition of virtue

but then virtuous slaves rule over masters

What did Glaucon/ Adeimantus say about justice? Book 2

justice belongs to the first kind of good: things desirable only for their own sake

According to Xenophanes, how can someone's set of beliefs be better than another's?

logical inquiry: paying attention to the consistency of what one is saying Empirical observation and ingerence based on such observations evident in his theories of cyclical nature of life and nautral processes

Two ways of discovering better according to Xenophanes

logical inquiry: paying attention to the consistency of what one is saying Empirical observation and ingerence based on such observations evident in his theories of cyclical nature of life and nautral processes

But what is happiness and how are we to achieve it?

nto a feeling but a characteristic of ones life as a whole remembeR: in order to find out what it is we need to find the formal cause since a final cause is what a thing is for in virtue fo what it essentially is. If happiness is hte final cause of a human eing it will depend on what a human being actually is but it is not enough to know hwat it is we need to find out whow to achieve it. HTis means to find out hteefficient cause of it

What are the three kinds of souls, according to Aristotle?

nutritive perceptual rational

Explain what an accidental is and the two ways of speaking of an accidental

something that is an accidental is something that could be the case of not, in the sense that it will be a property of something more fundamental or essential, so there will be something that has an essence, and the accidental aspects are the things that could be true or false about it without changing hte essence. two ways of speaking of an accidental are: universal or particular

objection by cebes

soul as a weaver weaver makes cloaks has many different cloaks but in the end the wweaver and cloaks both die now says soul is hte weaver and bodies are the cloaks so all still dies

objecitong by simmas

souls as a harmony (attunemen imagine body has bunch of organs that function once not balance stop funcitiong and die soul isn't indestructible

Empdocles cosmis cycle

sphairos(total domination of love) our world zoogony under increased strife cosmic whirl (total domination of strife) counter world

5 arguments of immortality of the soul

the cyclical argument the recollection argument the affinity arugment the soul as harmony argument the final argument

THe first of those who studied philosophy were misled in the ir search for truth and the nature of thigns by their inexperience, which as it were thrust them into another path. So they say that none of the htings that are either comes to be or passes out of existence because what comes to be must do so eitehr from what is or from what is not both of which are impossible. ARistotles reaction

to maintain that all htigns are at rest and to disregard sense perceptio nin an attempt to show the hteory reasonable woulc be an instance of intellectual weakness it would call into queisot na whole system not a particular detail moreover it owuld attack not only the physicist but almost all sciences and all received opinions sicne change playsa a part in all of them

being in another or not being in another

tracks whether something is essential or accidental. This means that a property can either be in another thing (so its accidental) or cant be in another thing ( so it is essential)

the 2 great dangers to the unity of city are: (book 2)

welath and poverty they tur n a unified city into many cities beginning with hte city of hte rich and hte city of hte poor

Building examples of change accordign to aristotle

when the buildable is actualized it is being built and then is the process of building stage 1 bricks actually bricks, potentially house staae 2 the house potekntiality of hte bricks is being actualized the yare being built stage 3 house there is an actual house the potentiality of hte bricks is no more it is fully actualized

What is the relationship between the four-fold classification of existing things (being) and the list of 10 categories?

• The list of highest kinds of things. • There is no one highest category, such as 'being'. Why? If it were a real kind (genus) it would have to be differentiated by something 'falling outside of it' (Met. 998b23). • Rather there are 10 (1b25-2a4): • Substance: primary and secondary • Quantity: continuous (2 miles) and discrete (number 10) • Quality: being pale, being tall, being clever • Relatives: being taller than, being more distant than • Somewhere • Sometime • Being in a position • Having • Acting • Being acted upon • Category 1: either being or not being said of but not in anything • Categories 2-9: either being or not being said of but in something else Non-accidentals (whether universal or particular) fit into category 1 while categories 2-9 relate to accidentals (whether universal or particular). [The list of categories is long and I don't know if he wants us to write everything out and explain them but this is the gist of it

How is Aristotle's position in the Categories concerning the fundamental constituent of reality a reversal of Plato's position? Can you explain it?

• The primary substances are self-dependent in Aristotle's view. • In Plato's view, all material things are dependent on their reflection of perfect forms. A ball is round because it reflects the perfect form of roundness.

How does the introduction of Forms help to address the worries that Socrates raises about the available forms of explanations? What is, in effect, the function of the Forms

• To group things together and differentiate things. • Form: an essence that a group of examples of the form partakes in. • Essence: the nature/definition of the examples and what groups them into one form.Carlo: answer something. • People cannot explain things, because people do not know the definition of the forms. • For example: people cannot explain why something is beautiful when they see it, because they do not have a theory of what beauty is. • Something that is beautiful is not an explanation of beauty; it is merely an example. • To come up with an explanation of forms, one must have a theory of the definition for the form

Heraclitus: he refers to a logos according to which 'all things come to be' and which is 'common to all'. Can you suggest what he means?

The "logos" is a single divine law that controls and steers the cosmos and forms a rational structure. Within the logos, 'all things come to be'. This is to say that there is a rational structure that the cosmos will evolve into (Ex. an acorn grows into an oak tree— connected in a reasonable way). This logos is 'common to all', meaning that this rational structure is in everything that exists.

What is Aristotle's definition of change? Can you explain it?

"Change is the actualization of potential being as such" Example: when the buildable is actualized, it is being built and this is the process of building. Change is always directional. Change ceases when the potentiality has become fully actualized. In order to understand what a given change is, we need to understand what it is directed towards, i.e., what the end or goal of the change is. Potentialities can only be understood by reference to end states for which they are potentialities.

Explain Aristotle's four-fold classification of things that exist into accidental universals, essential universals, accidental particulars, and non-accidental particulars. Which of these is the basic, most fundamental constituent of reality? Can you give examples of each category?

(1) accidental universals: said of and in others For example: being pale, being 2 meters tall, being angry (2) essential universals (secondary substances): said of but not in others For example: being human, being an animal (3) accidental particulars: not said of but in others For example: the particular paleness that Socrates now has (4) non-accidental particulars (primary substances): not said of and not in others (this is the most fundamental constituent of reality) For example: Socrates, Aristotle, this plant

What parts of the soul does Socrates distinguish? How is each of the individually argued for by Socrates? What do we know about each of these parts?

- Appetites, wishing, willing are all cases of wanting something - Rational calculation is not having appetites, not-wishing, and not-willing are their opposites. - The third part is the spirit by which we get angry we know its not an appetite because you can want something and be disgusted at the same time. Spirit seems to align more with the rational side but we seen in small children that they are full of spirit from birth but some never gain rationale but must gain later in life.

What are the possible interpretations of Aristotle's account of happiness? What advantages/disadvantages does each have?

- Book 1-9: Happiness is an inclusive end: it includes activities of all virtues (temperance, courage, justice, friendship, etc.) spread over lifetime. Best fulfills the condition of separateness - Consistent with Aristotle's treatment (in books 1-9) of all virtuous activities as things that are good and desirable for their own sake - It seems better to answer the common intuitions about what happiness is in book 1, chapter 8 - Book 10: Happiness is an exclusive end: it consists of activities of contemplation (that is, of activities of the highest intellectual virtue - wisdom). Arguments in favor of Happiness as exclusive end: - It seems suggested by Aristotle's remark that "the human good proves to be activity of the soul in accord with virtue, and indeed the best and most complete virtue, if there are more virtues than one" (1098a16-18). - It is explicitly asserted by Aristotle in book 10, chapters 6-8: If happiness is activity in accord with virtue, it is reasonable for it to accord with the supreme virtue, which will be the virtue of the best thing. The best is understanding, or whatever else seems to be the natural ruler and leader, and to understand what is fine and divine, by being itself either divine or the most divine element in us. Hence complete happiness will be its activity in accord with its proper virtue, and we have said that this activity is the activity of study (contemplation). Nic. Eth., 10.7, 1177a13-19. - It is claimed by Aristotle to best fulfill the conditions of completeness (1177b2-4) and self-sufficiency (1177a27-1177b1).

Why does Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge Socrates to defend justice? What are they unhappy about? What do they want Socrates to prove?

- Glaucon and Adeimantus believe that Justice is desirable for its own sake - They want to know what justice and injustice are and what power each itself has when its by itself in the soul. - They want justice proved to be better than injustice - Socrates says that justice is desirable for its own sake and its consequences

Once the feverish city is in place, what new class or new craft is introduced into the city? Why is it needed? What do we learn about it?

- Guardians: Auxiliaries and Rulers. - War - It is needed to seize land and to protect the city.

How is the Paradox of Inquiry related to the search for the definition of virtue?

- If you know what it is, you do not need to inquire about it. If you do not know what it is, inquiry will not help.

What are, according to Aristotle, the 4 causes of human beings? What is the final cause of human beings? How would we determine what it is?

- Material cause: flesh, bones, sinews, etc. - Formal cause: the defining structure of x. In this case: the principle that guides the development and functioning of a human being (DNA). - Efficient cause: the parent (father) who imposed the form (semen) onto the matter (egg, provided by the mother). - Final cause: HAPPINESS (eudamonia - living well). -According to Aristotle, the final end (cause) of a human being is happiness (eudaimonia). - Happiness: not a feeling (as when one feels happy), but a characteristic of one's life as a whole (more like well-being or living-well). - But what is happiness? And how are we to achieve it? Remember: In order to find out what it is we need to find the formal cause since a final cause is what a thing is for in virtue of what it essentially is. If happiness is the final cause of a human being, it will depend on what a human being essentially is. But it is not enough to know what it is - we need to find out how to achieve it. This means to find out the efficient cause of it - i.e., how to be such a human being that we achieve it. Concerning (1): Aristotle's theory of happiness. concerning (2): Aristotle's theory of virtue.

How is the selection of rulers executed? What is the noble lie? What role does it play in Socrates' story?

- Must be picked from the guardians, you want someone who will do what they believe is best for the city, in so doing what is best for themselves, and nothing less. - They must be difficult to deceive, can withstand labors, paints, and contests, are resistant to and fears and immune to pleasures - A noble lie to persuade the rulers or (if not them) than the rest of the city that the people we choose in this way should rule. A religious story to make people accept their and others' position in the city. - Myth of Metals: We all come from the earth and because of this we all have metals in us, either gold, silver, or bronze. Those with gold in them are destined to be rulers, silver are destined to be auxiliaries (military), and bronze are destined to be the working class. Mixing one of the metals into a different category would be catastrophic for a city. *This lie is to ensure there is no controversy over who gets to rule.

What is Socrates' argument of the tripartite soul? On what principle is it based?

- Principle of Opposites: It is clear that the same thing cannot do or undergo opposite things; not, at any rate, in the same respect, in relation to the same thing, at the same time. So, if we ever find that happening here, we will know that we are not dealing with one and the same thing, but with many. - Assent and dissent, wanting something and rejecting it, taking something and pushing it away are all mutual opposites.

What are the origins of society according to socrates?

- Socrates says that a city comes to be because none of us are self sufficient, that we need many things.

How does Socrates suggest he will go about answering the challenge? Why does he decide to investigate justice first in the city?

- Socrates says that there is justice in the city and the whole city. That the city is larger then a man and that it would be easier to learn what justice is in the city. So he proposes that htey first find out what justice is in the city and then look for it in the individuals

What is Socratic elenchus? How does it work? Can you give an example? What is its purpose and what are its limitations? How does it help us to solve the problem of Socratic Ignorance?

- Socratic elenchus is taking a thesis P, furthering it with agreeable premises Q and R, then showing that P, Q, and R entail a contradiction, which makes thesis P false. - socrates argument against the claim that he corrupts the youth is an example

What is the city of pigs? What is the feverish city? How do they differ?

- The city of pigs is one where everyone is just doing the minimum to survive. They are surviving and reproducing thats it. - The feverish city adds delicacies. In order to add these you need more land and you need to seize this from your neighbors in order for this you need guardians to seize land and to defend your own land. You also need rulers to tell the guardians what to do. - Biggest difference is war and guardians..

What is the function argument? How does it work? Can you explain it? Why does Aristotle think it will help us in our search for the human good?

- The formal criteria will help us decide whether what we find is a good candidate for happiness. - But how are we to go about finding what it is? - Remember: final cause is what a thing is for in virtue of what it essentially is. If happiness is the final cause of a human being, it will depend on what a human being essentially is. - We know - human beings are rational animals. But how to proceed from that point? - - Aristotle suggests that we do so by attending to what he calls function (ergon) and, more specifically, by attending to the human function. - What is a function (ergon)? - It is the characteristic activity of a given thing as belonging to its species (or genus). - So Aristotle thinks that if we can find what the human function (ergon) is, we will be able to make progress on what happiness is. - So: what is the characteristic activity of human beings as human beings: - It is neither nutrition nor reproduction (plants too). - It is not perception (all animals do that). - It is the ability to reason AND to act in accordance with reason. - But human rationality is twofold - the rational and the emotional self. Even our emotions are not like the emotions of other animals, but they are rational in some sense. - Human Function: the activity of the soul in accordance with reason or requiring reason. - But simply performing the function will not be enough since one can do so, but do so badly.- - The Human Good (happiness): activity of the soul in accord with virtue.

What is the story of Gyges? What is it supposed to illustrate?

- The ring would make the wearer invisible, thus able to act unjustly without gaining an unjust reputation. It is meant to illustrate the argument that one only acts justly for fear of gaining an unjust reputation. -The legend of the ring of Gyges, he asks us to imagine that a just man is given a ring which makes him invisible. Once in possession of this ring, the man can act unjustly with no fear of reprisal. No one can deny, Glaucon claims, that even the most just man would behave unjustly if he had this ring. He would indulge all of his materialistic, power-hungry, and erotically lustful urges. This tale proves that people are only just because they are afraid of punishment for injustice. No one is just because justice is desirable in itself.

Where is justice in the city? What is justice in the city? What relation does it bear to the origins of the city? What is its main function within the city? What relation does it bear to the good of the city?

- What remains in the city is the power that makes it possible for all of these to arise in it, and that preserves them when they have arisen for as long as it remains there itself (433b). - What most contributes to making it good is the fact that every child, woman, slave, free person, craftsman, ruler, and subject each does his own work and does not meddle with what is not (433d). - Justice: when moneymaking, auxiliary, and guardian class each do their own work in the city. - Justice = a harmony between the parts of the city achieved by adhering to the principle that each part should do its own work (i.e., what it is naturally and so best suited to do) and not meddle or interfere with the work of any other part. Relation to the origins of the city: Allows people to acquire the things they need - main function: to ensure harmony and efficiency - In relation to the good of the city: same as above

What is the difference between essential predication, accidental predication, and 'is' of identity?

- is of identity equates to items, its how plato uses the term - Essential predication means that any being is either said-of another thing or is not said-of another thing. - Accidental predication means that any being is either in another or is not in another.

What are the conditions of completeness, self-sufficiency and separateness? Can you explain each? What role do they play in Aristotle's inquiry into happiness (or the human good)?

-Completeness: An end or goal that is good only for its own sake -Self-sufficiency: must suffice for a life involving other people. (Ex: if you gain pleasure from seeing others miserable, you're not fulfilling this requirement) -Separateness: cannot be counted as one good among many (not made better/worse by anything else) - In order for something to fulfill the requirement of the ultimate human good, it must fulfill all three requirements.

What is Socrates' defense against the formal charge of corrupting the youth?

-Either deliberate or not (both problematic -Ironic response: isn't it ironic that everyone but socrates know what corrupts the youth?

What is the relation between the elenchus, as a Socratic method of philosophy, and truth?

-Elenchus is a method of discovering truth. A thesis is presented, and Socrates uses elenchus to present agreeable premises to further the claim, then proves these claims to contradict the thesis, thus proving the thesis false.

3. What is the content of their challenge to Socrates? What theory of justice do they offer? What are the origins of justice according to them?

-Glaucon divided goods into three classes and asks Socrates to defend his argument that justice fits into the highest class ("consisting of things valued both because of themselves and their consequences"). It was commonly believed that justice belonged in the lowest class ("consisting of things harsh in themselves and only valued only for their consequences"). - People believe that to do injustice is naturally good but to suffer injustice is bad. They believe that hte suffering far exceeds the goodness of doing it. So they agree with each other neither to do injustice not to suffer it and from this comes laws and what hte law commands they call lawful and just. Justice is an in between but suffering and not being able to revenge and doing and not getting caught. People value justice not because its good but because they are too weak to do injustice with impunity.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives two (conflicting) accounts of what happiness is. What are they?

-Happiness as an inclusive end (activities of all the virtues spread over a life) -Happiness as an exclusive end (activities of the highest virtue, contemplation

How does he explain he came to practice philosophy?

-He was ordered to practice philosophy by "the god"

2 types of questions for what is f

1. asking for the essence of a thing named specified by a definition 2. giving an adequate account of a thing named by the linguistic term f 2 is tricky since it includes 1 but not only one

Responses to the arows

1. time is not composed of instants 2. true that an arrow is not moving at any instand, also not at rest an any instant. Motion/ rest are true of htings only over periods of time. ARrow is in motion over hte periodwithin which instants occur 3. atomic account of time time composed of indivisible nows each with temporal duration

What does Aristotle mean when he says that 'being' is spoken in many ways?

According to Aristotle, 'being' is spoken in more than one way and so things 'have being' in more than one way too (there is more than one way in which things can exist).

How does matter and form enter the analysis of change?

According to Aristotle, we can in fact analyze everything that exists in terms of matter and form. House: bricks (matter) on which a form of a house (a structure) was imposed.

What theories of the soul were common in Aristotle's time? Is his theory akin to any of them?

According to Aristotle, we can in fact analyze everything that exists in terms of matter and form. House: bricks (matter) on which a form of a house (a structure) was imposed.

How does Aristotle's view of a predicative sentence of the 'x is F' type differ from Plato's view?

According to Plato, all properties stand in the same relation to the individuals that have them. Individual things have no true being. They are simply bundles of properties. Aristotle stated that "x is F" does not always express the same relation between an individual thing (x) and a property (F).

Why is a just person better off/in better psychological health, according to Plato?

All parts playing their role, which results in aiming at good of the overall person/explain.

What is Aristotle's analysis of change? How does he propose, in his theory, to avoid the problem, highlighted by Parmenides, that nothing can come to be out of nothing?

Aristotle's Definition of Change: "Change is the actualization of potential being as such" (Phys. 3.1, 201a10-11) Example: when the buildable is actualized, it is being built and this is the process of building. (Phys. 3.1, 201a16-18) Stage 1: bricks: actually bricks, potentially house. Stage 2: the house-potentiality of the bricks is being actualized - they are being built. Stage 3: house: there is an actual house, the potentiality of the bricks is no more: it is fully actualized. Change is always directional. Change ceases when the potentiality has become fully actualized. In order to understand what a given change is, we need to understand what it is directed towards, i.e., what the end or goal of the change is. Potentialities can only be understood by reference to end states for which they are potentialities. There must be something that any change is caused by a distinct cause - a changer. What does the changer do? - The changer introduces the new property. • For example: The house is painted green by a painter. - Aristotle expresses this idea by saying that the changer introduces a form. - Aristotelian forms are best understood as actual properties of things. As such they only exist in things (substances). - So when a substance (a thing) is taking on a new property, it is taking on a new form.

Why does Socrates think it is important to know what piety is?

Because he's being convicted for impiety. Also, because Euthyphro is willing to prosecute his own father over accusations of impiety, he will have to be able to explain what it is that he's being sentenced for

How does the city evolve? What principles are, according to Socrates, operative in the development of the city?

Cities come to be because people need many things and nobody is self-sufficient: The principle of specialization: increase in the number of citizens (370b-c) More crafts (production of tools), Imports will be needed, And so also exports, businessmen, and laborers. The first roles to fill are those that will provide for the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, health, and shelter. The just city is populated by craftsmen, farmers, and doctors who each do their own job and refrain from engaging in any other role. They are all members of what Socrates deems the "producing class," because their role is to produce objects for use. Socrates calls this city the "healthy city" because it is governed only by necessary desires. The next stage is to transform this city into the luxurious city, or the "city with a fever." Once luxuries are in demand, positions like merchant, actor, poet, tutor, and beautician are created. All of this wealth will necessarily lead to wars, and so a class of warriors is needed to keep the peace within the city and to protect it from outside forces. The producers cannot act as our warriors because that would violate our principle of specialization.

What are the relevant parts of the city according to Socrates? What do we know about each of them?

Common Citizens: They can pursue any trade or craft provided that they do not aim at power in the city. As long as they do this, their contribution to the city is appropriate. Auxiliaries: They need to adopt the good of the city as what their craft aims at and adopt the rulers' view of that good. Rulers: They need to identify the good of the city as their own good and they need to possess the knowledge of what is in fact good for the city.

Give one argument for the immortality of the soul.

Cyclical Argument, Recollection Argument, Affinity Argument, Soul as Harmony Argument, Socrates' Final Argument

What is, according to Aristotle, the soul's relation to the body?

Different kinds of souls: Nutritive soul (plants, animals, humans) Perceptual soul (animals, humans) Rational soul (humans) When one observes this variety, one notices that in some sense, plants are organized differently than animals, and non-rational animals are organized differently than human beings. Thus, Aristotle thinks that one should think of the soul's relation to a body in the same way as one thinks of the relation between form and matter. In fact, soul is the form of the body.

Thales Theories

Everything has a soul, thought that soul produced motion, based on the observations of effects of natural magnets. Earth is stable because of resting water. Water is the source of everything. He may have believed this because water nourishes everything and heat comes from it and water is the nature of moist things.

When Heraclitus says we can't step in the same river twice, what point is he making?

Everything is constantly changing. This is his "Flux Doctrine".

Anaximenes Theories

Everything is made up of air. Didn't think source was undefined, but definite. Causes eternal motion through which change occurs. Air is indefinite but not as vague as aperion. Says condensation and rarefaction are the processes that transform air. Gave explanations of meteorological and other natural phenomena. Air is a god. Earth rides on air. Dues to flatness and resistance Earth stays still. If the air is finer, it becomes fire; being condensed, it becomes wind, then cloud; and when still further condensed, it becomes water, then earth, then stones, and the rest come to be from these

Xenophanes New Conception of Gods

God is not like mortals at all no laws. God knows all sees all and hears all. God is unchanging because can't get better or worse. Creates things with his mind, effortless.

What is Socrates' Disavowal of Knowledge? What kind of knowledge does he disavow?

He claims that he really knows nothing, and this is wisdom. He claims specifically that he knows nothing about physics or human virtue.

What are Euthyphro's charges and against whom? Why does Socrates see it fit to ask Euthyphro about the nature of piety?

He is prosecuting his own father for killing a man who killed a slave on the charges of impiety. Socrates sees it fit to ask Euthyphro what the definition of piety is since he too is being convicted of impiety.

Why does Socrates think that his city, once fully developed is also fully or completely good?

It is courageous, temperate, and wise. If the city is just, each part of the city will perform its own function without interfering with the others, thus allowing for efficiency and harmony. If we find any of these in it, what remains will be what we have not Since the city is completely good, it is courageous, temperate, just, and wise: 'if we find any of these in it, what remains will be what we have not found'. What is left over is justice which allows all of them to continue existing. The wise are the rulers. The courageous are the auxiliaries (military). And the temperance exists as long as the inferior people's appetites are mastered by the wisdom and appetites of the rulers (greaters). The admittance of which group should rule the city is also an important factor in temperance.

The Sophist Thrasymachus' view in book 1

Justice is advantage of the stronger and the good of another.

What is the distinction between matter and form?

Matter: substance/material Form: actual properties of things. When a substance (matter) takes on a new property, it is taking on a new form. matter <--change--> form

What theories of the soul were common in Aristotle's time? Is his theory akin to any of them?

Platonic theory: soul is an immaterial, immortal entity which is distinct from the body. Presocratics: they saw human beings in material terms and explain all perception, thinking and desiring as material processes only.

Explain Plato's argument for the tripartite soul.

Same thing can't have opposite states at same time, yet we want/not don't want the same thing at the same time. And this can happen in three different ways: so our soul must have three parts (rational, appetitive, & spirited part)

What elements are, according to Aristotle, present in every instance of change?

Something that persists through the change: Aristotle call is it a subject. The subject can be of two kinds: - A (primary) substance - this kind of change is alteration/increase/decrease/motion. - Matter - this kind of change is generation or destruction of a primary substance. The acquisition or loss of a form. There are two kinds of forms that can be acquired or lost in a change: - An accidental form - this kind of change is alteration, etc. - A substantial form - this form corresponds to a secondary substance (human, dog, and so on). This kind of change is generation or destruction of a primary substance. The changer

Why did some people think that Parmenides was a radical or strict monist? What is the argument they could point to? Are there other ways to understand what he says?

The Strict Monist Interpretation: There exists exactly one thing, totally unchaining an undifferentiated. On this view, Parmenides thinks that our ordinary experience of and beliefs in the existence of change or plurality of all things are false. What 'is' is 'whole and uniform' and 'motionless': Nor is it divided, since it is all alike; and it is not any more there, which would keep it from holding together, nor any worse,but it is all replete with what 'is'. Therefore, it is all continuous: for what 'is' draws to what 'is'. Yes, the Logical Interpretation and the Aspectual Interpretation Logical interpretation: subject is whatever can be thought and talked about. What can be thought and talked about is unchanging. THus existence of change and plurality must be argued for. Aspectual Interpretation: 1) Assume that there is one single principle of things (A) 2) Then all things are A 3) If something 'is', then it must be that thing essentially because being can only be eternal and unchanging 4) So nothing can be something accidentally 5) If all things are A, they cannot be anything else but A 6) So all things are the same 7) So all things are the same thing

What does the changer do?

The changer introduces the new property. For example: The house is painted green by a painter. Aristotle expresses this idea by saying that the changer introduces a form.

What are the two elements in a Socratic definition?

The definition must cover all and only cases of F The definition must explain what makes F an F

How is justice, as well as other virtues, present in an individual? What function does it fulfill? How is it located to the good of the individual?

The soul is just in virtue of the fact that each element does its own job where ruling and being ruled are concerned. It is desirable in itself because it is in fact identical with psychological health. It is also desirable for its consequences since it enables the one who has it to satisfy most of one's natural desires without causing any harm to oneself. • Courage: the soul is courageous in virtue of its spirited part preserving 'through pains and pleasures the pronouncements of reason about what should inspire terror and what should not (442c). • Wisdom: the soul is wise in virtue of reason having knowledge of what is advantageous - both for each part and for the whole, the community composed of all three (442c) • Temperance: the soul is temperate because of the friendly and concordant relations between these same things: namely, when both the ruler and its two subject share the belief that the rationally calculating element should rule, and do not engage in faction against it. (442c-d) it is desirable in itself because it is in fact identical with psychological health. It is also desirable for its consequences since it enables the one who has it to satisfy most of one's natural desires without causing any harm to oneself.

What does Socrates mean when he claims there is some knowledge that we have which we have independently of experience? Which argument shows that and how? What kind of knowledge is that? Why is this important?

There are necessary concepts and propositions, and these must be known a priori. A priori knowledge is knowledge attained independent of/prior to experience simply in virtue of being well-functioning human beings. The Recollection Argument shows this by arguing that there are some things we know which we could not have learnt from experience because the objects of this knowledge are not observable. The example he gives is Equality Itself This is important because if there are things that we know a priori (such as equality itself), then there may also be moral/ethical forms, thus providing objective moral/ethical truths that are considered universal and eternal.

What are the characteristic of primary substances? How do they differ from any other category of existing things?

Things that are not said of anything and are also not in anything: primary substances. - Primary substances: concrete particulars that are members of natural kinds. -Examples: an individual man or a horse (1a20, 2a11). - A primary substance is a particular (not said-of anything) that is non-accidental (it is not in anything). - they do not depend on their existence and on being what they are on anything else. - explain how things essentially exist Things that are not said of anything but are in something else: accidental particulars. - Examples: an individual piece of grammatical knowledge (1a25), or the particular paleness of Socrates (which is different from the paleness of anybody else). - These entities depend on their existence on the primary substances in which they are: Socrates' paleness cannot exist without Socrates. - In fact, we cannot refer to them in any other way than by referencing the substance that has them. Things that are said of but are not in something else: secondary substances: - These are universals ('human', 'animal', 'cat', 'oak'). - They are essential characteristics of the primary substances. - They are also kinds to which the primary substances belong. Things that are said of and are also in something else: accidental universals: - Examples: knowledge, paleness. - The universal paleness is said of many primary substances but is only accidental to them. - It can only take place of a predicate.

Can you explain Aristotle's concepts of potentiality and actuality?

To maintain that all things are at rest, and to disregard sense-perception in an attempt to show the theory reasonable, would be an instance of intellectual weakness, it would call into question a whole system, not a particular detail: moreover it would attack not only the physicist but almost all sciences and all received opinions, since change plays a part in all of them. (Phys. 8.3, 253a32-b2) Trying to understand why puzzles, paradoxes, and arguments (such as Parmenides') that are apparently compelling are only apparently compelling. Finding some truth in different and opposing views. Nothing comes out of nothing: true. Why? Because if something came out of nothing, there would be no reason why it came to be now rather than earlier or later, here or somewhere else. (The Principle of Sufficient Reason) So he agrees that if there is such a thing as change, we must be able to understand it. Change is always change of a subject that exists prior to, during, and after change. (Phys. 1.7, 190a14-16): The man becomes musical. (TRUE), The not musical becomes man. (TRUE, but misleading). - The problem: how can being (musical) arise from not-being (not-musical)? - The answer: Aristotle's theory of potentiality and actuality. • Potentiality: the ability of something to take on a new property. - Examples: • John, who is a native speaker of English, can learn Spanish. The new property - knowledge of Spanish. • A white house can be painted green. The new property - being green. • An alligator that is completely still and at rest can suddenly move very quickly. The new property - motion. Actuality: the completed exercise of an ability to take a new property - the actual possession of the property. - Examples: • John, who is a native speaker of English, learnt Spanish. He went from potentially knowing Spanish, to actually knowing it. • A white house was painted green. It went from potentially green to actually green. • An alligator suddenly moved. It went from potentially moving, to actually moving. Notice: an object's potentiality is always grounded in some actuality. - Examples: • John has the potentiality to learn Spanish. But he has this potentiality because he has, actually, rational mind. • A white house can be painted green. But it can be so painted because it is actually a solid colored object that can absorb paint. • An alligator can suddenly move. It has this ability because it is in actual possession of a moving apparatus (muscles, nerves, and so on). Notice: an object's potentiality is always grounded in some actuality. - A dog cannot learn Spanish - it has no such potentiality. A lake cannot be painted green - it has no such potentiality. And a rock cannot suddenly move - it has no such potentiality.

Aristotle on X and F

X if F doesn't always express some relation between X and F 1. socrates is pale 2. socrates is human - In (1) socrates is said to be pale. But note it is a mere accident that Socrates i s pale. He could become tanned and still be Socrates - In (2) Socrates is said to be human but it is no mere accident that the is a human. In face he can't become not human and stillremain socrates thus the two instances of 'is' in 1 and 2 don't express the same relations. We will call the is in 1 a case of acidental prediction and hte is in 2 a case of essential prediction

All change is characterized by something that persists through the change: Aristotle calls it a subject. THe subject can be of two kinds:

a primary substance: thisk ind of change is alteration/ increase/decrease/motion matter: this kind of change is generation or destruction of a primary substance

One problem for plato is to explain how it is that material things come ot be instances of the forms. Forms are not active things they do not seem to generate anything explain how the efficient cause solves this.

a sculptor is htefficient cause of a statue because he imposes the structure of the statue on a chunk of matter. In order for him to do that he needs: knowledge ofhte desired form of hte statue, knowledge of how to bring about htat form i nthe matter, not enoguh to know what a cherry pie is if one wants to make one you also need to know how to prepare it the efficient cause thus specifies the agent of hte change but in terms of hte features that are relevant to what is being explained: praiteles is hte author of a sttaute of hermes insofar as he possess the form of hte sttue and knows how to make it

Temperance in the city

agreement of lower class that will be ruled by upper class agreement of upper class that they will rule lower class agreement of all about who rules and who is ruled

Accidental universal versus accidental particular

a universal is like a category it is a notion or idea that we can say something is an instance of. so for eample the number of leaves on a tree because it isn't just that tree that can have that number and it isn't essential accidental particulars aren't the categories of things that instances can fall into or not they are the actual things in the world the instances themselves. our language can't really capture them directly because when we talk we speak in statements like the above we say that something has some property those kinds of statements are saying that substance is an instance of a universal. The particulars themselves are hte actual stuff so like hte blueness of my sweater or hte shortness of tom cruise.

Eample of the changer

a white house, painter with green paint, green house the painter posses the relevant property (form) -the green form the white house is potentially green. Once it is painted it has acquired anew form - being green notice the substance ( the house) persists throughtout the change the substance is the subject of the change the green comes to bei n htouse not out of nothing but from the houses potentiality to be green, from the activity of the painter that introduces hte form which he possesses actually this kind of change is alteration

Anaxagoras principle I

accepts parmenides denial of strict coming to be and passing away think its rediculous to think just 4 elements you cant change somethin fundamentally way more natural things like bones, flesh etc. everything has all natural things even in a minute amount everything htat comes to be is a combination of material and perishing is a dissolution

Cosmological Principles Heraclitus

according to logical structure all things happen out of necessity. War made all. To know what to do is to fit oneself in with logical structure of universe. With Bow lyre and tension

the human good (happiness)

activity of hte soul in accord with virtue

choice of rulers general description book 2

and he would love osmething most if he thought htat hte same htigns were adventageous both for it and for himself, and if he thought htat when it did well he owuld do well too; and if it didn't the opposite would happen. We must choose from among our guardians the sort of men who seem on the basis of our observation to be most inclined thoughout their entire lives to do what htey believe to be advantageous for the city and most unwilling to do the opposite. since peoples beliefs and convictions can be changed by theft (persuasion or ofrgetting) compulsion( suffering and pain) or sorcery (pleasure or fear) we must choose those who: remember and are difficult to deceive, can withstand labors, parins and contests and are resistant ot fears and immune to pleasures

LEgacy and influence of aristotle

antiquity: his works reappearing in the 1st century BC form the basis of about 7 centuries of philosophy done in a broadly aristotelian style 67th 7th century influence in byzantine an arabic philosopher

being in

any being is either in another or is not in another

being said of

any being is either said of another or is not said of another

objection to 5th definition of virtue

appeals to partsof virtue in the course of giving an account of virtue

The choice of paths Parmenides

comes from the proem. Hinting at strucutre of poem. Must learn everything. Skeptical of the way of hte opinion and mortals

Aristotle's response to plato, zeno, and parmenides

at least sometings we perceive that is at least some of the regular material objects have essences or natures: the primary substances although their particular natures can perish( as when an animal or a plant dies) they are stable at least in two ways: as long as the primary substance exists it always has the same nature even if it undergoes great number of changes through its existence; even when a particular primary substance persihes the species or kind that it belongs to does not aristotles concept of substance as distinct from accidental properties as outlined in the categories enables aristotle to analyze chagne and at the same time launch a project of scientific investigation of nature despite objections in the parmenidean style this project includes investigation of psychological zoological meterological and cosmological phenomena. HIs book physics forms the phlosophical basis of such investgativion: it is not a book in which you find any laws of physics but a book in which the investiagte sand establishes the legitimacy of some very basic concepts that the science os physics presupposes: change place time and so on we ill be concerned with his account of chagne

democritus on forms

atoms fulfill the criteria

courage in the city

auxiliaries defend city on beliefs of city; is auxiliaries are courageous then city is courageous

two kinds of knowledge according to the theory of recollection

based on eperience not learned or experiened, innate.

Why do people love justice? book 2

because they are too weak to do injustice with impunity. It is thus good for them that it is in place it protects their life and possessions adeimantus: justice is praised only for reputations honors and rewards but these are set up by the initial agreement in itself nobody thinks justice if a good hting

Can virtue be taught

being teachable is a feature or property of something whether or not something has or can have a certain property depends on the kind of thing it is thus whether virtue is teachable depends on the kind of thing it is socrates one cannot know whether or not it has some quality unless one knows what it is.

Cyclical nature of life and natural processes according to Xenophanes

believed that Earth is being mixed into the sea, and overtime is dissolved by the moisture. SAys all humans perish when the earth is carried down into the sea and becomes ud, and then another beginning of generation and this change occurs in the kosmos.

arguemtns in favor of ahppiness as inclusive end

bet fulfills the condition of separateness consistent iwth aristotles treatment of all virtuous activities as things that are good and desirable for their own sake it seems better to answer the common intutitions about what happiness is

Republic book outlines

book1: what is justice? socratic refutation of thrasymachus' theory book 2: restatement of thrasymachean theory of justice by glaucon and adeimantus as a challenge to socrates book 2-4: socrates response: origins of justice. The soul-city analogy and the founding of the ideal city book 4: justice in the city: parts of hte soul, and justice in the soul book 5: the structure of hte ideal society the philosopher kings book 6-7: the education of hte philosopher kings book 8-9: ideal and non-ideal constitutions of city and non-ideal states of hte soul: aristocracy timocracy oligarchy democracy and tyranny book 10: art i nthe ideal of city. the myth of ER

Aristotle Life

born 384 BCE in Macedonian town of stagira age of 17 sent to athens to study at Platos academy remained associated with academy until Plato's death in 347 In 347 left for Asos in Asia Minor In 350 leaves Asos when his host Hermeias, the uler, also a friend an academic dies. Moves to Lesbos In Lesbos associates iwht Theophrastus, his msost important student and colleague. Marries Pythias with whom he has a daughter also called Pythias 343 Aristotle leaves lesbos to become the tutor of 13 year old Alexander the Great 335 returns to aThens sets up own school in a public eercise area dedicated ot hte God Apollo Lykeios ARistotles wife dies after his arrival in Athens Develops a relationshipswith Herpylllis. Unclear if married one of their children was nicomachus after who the nicomachean ethics is named In 323 leaves athens probably for political reasons movesto chalcis on the island of euboea dies of natural causes in 322

plato on forms

but anything material is subject o division and so to destruction hevnce nothign material can fulfill parmenidean criteria for what truly exists one can postulate as democritus did the something is indestructible but what reason is there to believe it? hence: basic constitutent of reality cant be material there are forms immaterial eternal unchanging abstract things truly what eist. eveyrhting else is constituted somethow by these forms. It can't be of course made up of them so how they participate i nthe appearance of forms

parmenides on forms

but what truly eists must fulfill certain criteria be eternal indestructible, unchanging, completely unified, and so on

common citizens book 2

can pursue any trade or craft provided thath tey do not aim at power in the city pursue their own interests by providing services to the city (pleasure)

what is the main theme of the meno

can virtue be taught

A quick summary of chagne accoding ot aristotle

chagne is always direction chagne ceases when the potentiality has become fully acutalized in order to understand what a given change is we need to understand what it is directed towards potentialities can only be udnerstood by reference to end states for which htey are potentialities

Aristotles definition of change

change is the actulaization of potential being as such

Menos 1st definition of virtue

commits a version of hte euthyphro mistake: - a mans virtue is being able to manage public affairs and so benefit his frineds and harm his enemies - a womans virtue is... - a childs is... hence there is virtue for every action and everyone for every task aof ours and every one of us. plato believes must have a universal aritotle things no universal

Describe the characteristics of what is

complete whole continuous unmoved ungenerated cant perish

Name and explain the three formal conditions on happiness, according to Aristotle

completeness (not for the sake of something else) -self-sufficiency (takes into account the social nature of human lives) -separateness (different in kind from other goods)

Some intuitions concern the form they are about hte kind of hting that which makes life good must be

completness self sufficiency separateness

Whats the difference in the two questions for f

constraints required for successfully answering type 2 are less demanding htan those required for type 1 for type 2 one does not need to specify the essence of hte object signified by f all one needs to do is pick out an answer that will pick out all and only cases of f possess. 2 can be more than 1 answer 1 can only have 1 answer

what was socrates being charged for

corruption and offending gods

Heraclitus interests

cosmology morality theology

Challenge for socrates in book 2

could socrates argue that even in such circumstances of the extreme just and the extreme injustice, one would and should choose justice and that one would still be better off?

justice in the soul book courage wisdom temperance and justice book2

courage: the soul is courageous in virtue of its spirited part preserving thorugh paints and pleasures the prnouncements of reason about what hsould inspire terror and what should not wisdom: the sould is wise in virtue of reason having knowledge of what is advantageous temperance temperant because of friendly and concofdant relations justice: the sould is just in virtue fo the fact that each element does its own job where ruling and being urled are concerned

since the city is completely good it is:

courageous temperate just and wise: if we find any of these in it what remains will be what we have not found

which philsopher posited the existence of void

democritus

Parmenides main ideas

denial of hte possibility to say and to think of anything that does not exist. Denial of change. Denial of plurality

aristotles objection ot plato

he only concentrated on the formal and final cause neglecting material and efficient causes

main features of socrates philosophy

eclusively ethical philosopher question is how should we live seeks knowledge by a special method called elenchus. this method eamines/tests proposls or claims of knowledge by others does not demonstrate or offer proofs of any particular claims himself in fact he claims he has no knowledge he wants to find out admits own ignorance concives fo the human soul in purely rational terms the soul is identical with reason. Correspondingly he thinks that virtue is knowledge and vice must be ignorance thinks that since virtuce and vice are qualities of hte sould and the soul is what a human being truly is, no greater duty than to take care of ones soul in eamining hte view of others he lamost invariable shows them to be ignorant of what htey profess to know. he is thus often seen as making mockery out of his interlocutors or at any rate employing irony when speaking with them

Completeness

ends or goals can be pursued or be choiceworthy - for the sake of something else - for their own sake - for their own sake as wel las for htsake of somethin else an end or goal which is choiceworthy in its own right is more complete than an end which is choiceworhty forh te sake of something else the most complete goal or end is one which is always choiceworthy in its own right and never for hte sake of osmething else this is end if complete withou qualification happiness should have this characteristics notice: honor virtue pleasure htey are choiceworthy in their own right, but also for hte sake of happiness ( since we suppose that thorughthhem we will be happy) so they cant be on thei scondition happiness

equality itself vs. equal things

equal sticks and stones staying hte same appear both equal and unequal equality itself is never unequal, equality is an abstract concept therefore equality itself and equal things arent the same

knowledge of equality itself

equality is not hte same thign as any of hte things that we can perceive but equality is also not perceptible at all so how do we know it? perhaps we observed some examples of it but perceptible things can't provide any clear examples of equality hence our knowledge of equality can't be eplained as given to us by eperience it must have been a priori

Anaxagoras Principles II

everything in everything doctrine since he adheres to parmenidean doctrine he denies not only true coming ot be and passing away but qualitatinve change solution everything is in everythign at all times

Famous theories by anaxagoras

everything in everything theory of physical universe nous(mind) is the original cause of hte universe was first in greece to provide correct eplanation of eclipses sun is a mass of hot metal; moon is an earthy sphere stars are fierty stone theory of other solar systems

What does Heraclitus believe is the natur of all things

fire

What is Socrates Task in book 2

he has to show that justice is desirable in its own sake- that is, that even if nothing would follow from being just we would still choose to be just rather than unjust he also has ot show that justice will secure happiness. It is not only good because it secures basic securit y of life andp ossessions, but it will guarantee good life

Guardian Life

guardians( i.e. rulers and auxiliaries) are provided housing and vairous other service by the city they are forbidden to own any properties they do not get wages cannot give or receive presents or make personal trips husbands wives nad children are common within the guardians guardians can't have preferential treatemtn with class can't have specific blood relations socrates want complete unity guardians upposed ot be tied to ciety so take blood relatiosn and etent to whole class aristotle says preferences wil larise anyways because on will try ot find out blood relations

who is euthyphro

guy socrates meets on the way to court says he knows what piety is was on the way to prosecute his own father

What is the final cause for humans according to aristotle

happiness (eudaimonia

separateness

happiness cannot be counted as one good amon many since it is the highest most complete good which is self sufficient assume that happiness if a good one alongside pleasure honor wealth and such if that is so that hte goodness of happiness could be increased by adding pleasure to it but what would mean that happiness is not the highest good since happiness and pleasure would be better this shows that happiness cant be one among many goods it must stand apart form all other goods so that no addition can incrase its goodness

human function

he activity of the soul in accordance with reason or requiring reason but simply performing hte funciton will not be enough since one can do so but do so badly

What is the problem of Socratic Ignorance that arises out of his disavowal of knowledge?

he claims of ignorance but after says he knows some things so in a sense he is contradicting himself

Plato on X and F

if X is F then X participates in the form of F. - X: individual material things - F: any property of an individual material thing on this view then all proper ties stand in the same relation to the individuals that have them this means that from this pointo f view all properties are part of hte individual thing in the same way to the result: individual things really have no true being (they are simply bundles of properties the true being belongs to htep roperties themselves, although not as present in those individuals, but as perfect eternal forms)

Zeno and the arrow

if everything is always at rest when it occupies a space equal to itself and what is moving is always at a now then the moving arrow is motionless 1. at any now an arrow is not moving 2. this is the case for any now in the arrows flight 3. so throughout flight an arrow is not moving 4. what is not moving is at rest 5. so an arrow in flight is always at rest

alteration vs. substantial change

in alteration we have a substance a thing that has a potentiality of some sort. THis potentiality is being actualized during hte change until hte substance actually acquires the property for which it had the potentiality. HTe substance is hte subject of hte change but what a change in which a new substance comes to be, or ano ld htings perishes? what will that come from or what will it perish into? and what will be hte subject of such a change? in order to understand this we need one more concept: matter

THe problem zeno saw with movement

in crossing a whole distance we cross all intervening points on the line line contains infinite number of points line ofany magnitude can be divided impossible to complete infinite number of tasks

democritus response to zeno

in postulating atoms they postulate individsible magnitudes atoms assume limit to divisibility

How does aristotle think that one should think of hte soul

in relation to a body i nthe same way as one htings of the relation between form and matter inffact soul is the form of the body soul is not identical to the body but it is also not independento f the body

Probles with the reponses to the arrow

in reply to two one assumes that hte arrow is in motion but that is what zeno denies yield at point to zeno namely that nothing is no moving if by now we mean durationless instant.

atoms

infinite in number, differing size and shape, invisible, no internal gaps, constant movement in an infinite void, create thing by collidign with one another and combining, movement in space only change they undergo otherwise unchangeable ungenerated nad indestrubtible, all other chagnes we see are just rearrangement of atoms, create many worlds all temporary

Outline of the Apology

introduction: Socrates describes the kind of speech he will make preliminary outline of his plan of defense defense against hte popular caricature defense against the formal charges of meletus socrates describes his philosophical mission epilogue counterpenalty, proposing his alternative to the death penalty closing address

Outline of Apology

intrudoction: socrates describes hte kindof speech he will make

What does Parmenides mean by the two ways of thinking

is is the place holder for what reality actually is. it eists. it is getting at that we have to thinkg about what is

appetite and spirit book 2

is spirit the same hign as either appetitie or reason or a 3rd thing? the sotry of leonitus shows that it is not hte same thign as appetite

Categoris

it contains a theory of hte general categories of being it is a classification alist of all the most general kinds of things that exist. According to aristotle being is spoken in more than one way and so thigns have being in mroe than one way too

What is the content of Aristotle's work Categories?

it contains a theory of the general categories of being. It is a classification, a list of all the most general kinds of things that exist.

principle of opposites book 2

it is clear that the same thing can't do or undergo opposite things; not at any rate in the same respecti n relation to the same hting at the same time. so if we ever find that here we will know that we are not dealing with one and hte same hing but with many

Aristotle thinks that if we can find whath te human function is we will be able to make progress on what happiness is: so what is hte characteristic activity of human beigns as human beings

it is neither nutrition nor reproduction it is not perception it is the ability to reason and to act in accordance with reasonbut human rationality is twofold hte rational and hte emotion self even our emotions are not like the emotions of other naimals but htey are rationl in some sense

what is a function(ergon)

it is the characteristic activity of a given thing as belonging to the its species sculptor: her ergon is prodution of statues eye its ergon is sight hammer its ergon is drivng nails dog its ergon will be whatever it is that is typical for dogs as dogs to do

self sufficiency

it must suffice for a life involving other people human beigns are social beings and that means among other things, that our doing well involves and depends on a number of social roles: parent, hcild, spouse, friend, colleague, citizen, and so on Thus whatever happiness turns out ot be, it must be such that wehn prsent it makes hte life good in all these respects notice one cane have honor but what if hte lives of ones childre are miserable? one can also have pleasure, but what if one causes suffering to ones fellow citizens? in neither of these cases would ones life be unquailifiedly good even if it does contain something that is good

arguemtns in favor of happiness as eclusive end

it seems suggested by aristotles remark that hte human good proves to be activity of hte soul in accord with virtue and idneed the best and most complete virtue if ther armore virtues htan one if ahppiness is activity in accord with virtue it is reasonable for it to accord with the supreme virtue which will be the virtue of hte best thing the best is understanding or whatever else seems bto be hte natural rou.eler and leader and ot understand hwat is fien and divine by beignitself either divine or hte most divine element in us. Hence ocmplete happiness will be its activity in acord with its propelr virtue and we have said htat htis activity is hte activity of study it is claimed by aristotle to best fulfil lthe condition of completeness and self sufficiency

expert knowledge

knowing precise reasons gives explanation wants to acquire expert knowledge

nonexpert knowledge

knowledge in loose sense; what socrates has can be on basis of own eperience also intuition plays a role

Proof for secondary substances

lets have: - socrates - p :X is F - eample 1 X: socrates; f: human being- socrates ia human being. - notice that human being is said of socrates and also of many other beings but that socrates can't cease to be human and remain socrates. sobeing human is his essential characterists

proof of primary substance

lets have: - socrates - p: X is F - the place of X in the sentence p: subject - the place of F in the sentence p: predicate - subject is predicate - notice socrates can't occur as predicate there is no other hting than socrates which is socrates - if you say this is socrates the is does not express the relation of predication but of identity so socrates is not said of anything else - but socrates is also not in anythig else since socrates can't change in his being socrates and remain socrates. ANything that is in something else can be subtracted from tht hing wihtout destroying it

According to Empedocles, how do we perceive things?

like elements hiting like

aristotles works

much in fact almost all of his published (eoteric works) are lost what we have are works we refer to as esoteric I.e. his own notes not ideal

soul of human according to aristotle

material cause: flesh,bones,sinews,etc formal cause: the defining structure of x In this case htep rinciple that guides hte development and funcitoning of a human efficient cause: the parent father who imposed the form semen onto the matter egg provided by mother final cause: happiness( eudamonia-living well)

THe doctrine of 4 causes

material cause: the matter of x. In this case: the shape of the statue ( what a thing is made) formal cause: the defining structure of . In this case: the shape of the statue ( what a thing is ) efficient cause: what is responsible for putting or imposing the form on the matter. In this case hte sculptor in virute of his having the form ( blueprint) of the statue in his mind (source of change Final cause: whata thing is fr in virute of what it essentially is. In this case honoring hte god hermes ( for hte sake of which)

Anger and the four causes

matter: boiling of blood around the heart form: desire a felt pain to retaliate against somebody reliefthe pain because of a perceived insult efficient cause perceptio nfo an insult as something painful final cause preserving to social status

why is the theory of recollection a big deal

one might htinkg that mathematics is true necessarily and so its known a priori. But if that is true how come we can use it to describe the contingent world of eperience? what if htere are other thigns besides math that we know a priori? Plato: what if moral and ethical properites are such? What if morality is justifiable a priori there would the be obj. moral truths two reasons for hesitation: relativism and skepticism

Extreme justice book 2

one only does justice but has reputatio nfor being completely unjust

Anaxagoras cosmology

original states of the universe unlimited apeiron undifferentiated and motionless miture of all ingredients at some point mixture comes into motion: at hte right time mind sets it in motion so that mixture starts to revolve rotation causes ingredients in mass to shift and rearrange and the rotating mass becomes quantitatively differentiated nous is completely different from the mixture: only thing to which eveyrhting is everything principle does not exist. nous is unlimited self ruling mixed with nothing.

What are the two ways of thinking according to Parmenides

path of persuation( truth): that is and that it is not possible for it not to be that it is not and that it is ntot possible for it to not be. Path entirely unable to be investigated; can;t know what is not and can't declare it

Thrasymachus providdes gounds for doubting socrates view and for accepting his view Book 1

people are by nature self interested and so they aim to profit themselves. Injustice is the better way to profit oneself than justice the goal of any craft is ultimately to eploit/use for ones own profit the object in a good shape, but that is just a means to the actual goal

Empedocles thinking and perception

perceive like by like for with earth we see earth, air we see air water water fire fire love love strife strife wants to know why everything but perception and thinking need force things must be physical contact even cant see it; particles (effluences) come into contact with you and you see eyes perfect combination of all elements thinking same way.

relative being

perceptible world; individual material things are what htey are not in themselves hteir existence and being what htey are depends on the eistence of forms

how do we choose the guardians? book 2

phsyical and psychological qualities promoted by phsycal and musical education

Euthyphro 5th definition

piety as knowledge of sacrifice and prayer. but the argument comes back to piety being what is loved by gods and hte dialogue ends in aportia

Euthyphros 1st answer

piety is what I am doing in prosecuting the wrongdoer

Euthyphro 4th definition

pieyt as part of justive since evyerhitn that is piou is just but not everything that is just is pious

The proof of recollection

plat assumes boy can figure out problem wihtout being taught at t1 appears that boy does not know that p at t2 boy knows that p boy doesn't acquire knowledge of p during interval between time 1 and time 2 crucial assumptions by plato: socrates didn't do any teaching only way to acquire new knolegde is ot be taught it

What did xenophanes do?

poetry, silloi (satires) Peri PHuseos( on nature)

Background conditions in the apology

political atmosphere ( restoration of democracy after the tyranny of the 30) aand socrates anti democratic associations traditional anti-intellectualism; confusion of socrates with the sophists socratic cross examination of democratic politicians socratic stress on expertise seen as elitis and antidemocratic

What are the two aspects of human rationality, according to Aristotle?

rational and emotional

accidental universals

said of and in other - being pale being 2 meters tall being angry

essential universals(secondary substances)

said of but not in others being human begin an animal

Anaxagoras/Empedocles on ancient greeks

said that they were right about basic elements but those elements do things

What does the challenge to socrates say about justice? book 2

shows that it belongs to the 2 kind of good: things desirable only for their consequences

categories list

the list of the highest kinds of things no one highest category such as being. Why if it were a real kind it would have to be differentiated by something falling outside of it rather there are 10: substance: primary and secondary quantity: continuous and descrete uqality: being pale tall clever relatives being taller than somewhere sometime being in a position having acting being acted upon cateogry 1 either being or not being said of but not in anything categories 2-9 either being or not being said of but in something else

Socrates answer Book 2

the man city analogy : cities come to be because people need many things nad nobody is self sufficient; inferior ot other animals when it comes ot surviging on own. so the principle of spcializatio: increas in nuber of citizens only do one task there are more tasks imports will be needed, eports, businessment, etc will be needed. This is hte city of pigs: but where is justice? it lacks culture all do is eat and reproduce This brings us to hte luxurious (feverish) city leads to most impotant craft: war this necessitates a very special class of citizens called guardians whose task is to solely devote themselves to the defense of hte citys interest whenever these are called for this also means that somebody needs to rule

Plato on change

the objects of knowledge ust always be what htey are, never something else: the unchining eternal forms. Only they are truly something only they have nature or esssences. Material things which areall subject to change can only be perceived but not known

The theory of recollection

the paradox appears flaws when considering empirical quesitons but what about nonempirical questions? plato answer we already ahve within our sould the answers to such quesitons thus arriving at the answer is a matter of retieveing them form within we recognize them as correct when we confront them

the argument forh te tripariate soul book 2

the principle of opposites is true assent/dissent, wanting something/rejecting, tkaing/ pushing are all mutual opposites appetites, wiching, iwlling are all cases of wanting and not having these are their opposites preliminary points: thirst is for drink, hunger for good, knowledge for truth, and so on

Something odd about the Socrates Refutation Book 1

thrasymachus becomes disengaged from the discussion and the views, such as, for example, about what a true conception of craft is, reflect socrates' not his commitments socrates assumes that justice is a virtue and from that he shows that it is good and makes us happy. This is, of course, an examination of the consequences of a hypothesis, but: - this hypothesis is not agreed to by thrasymachus - he does not show that it is in fact true But he hsould have done so, since Thrasymachus just argued that justice does not make anyone happy and it is not a good thing either since socrates argues using points he, but not thrasymachus believeshe fails to seriously undermine his position. HIs arguments work for those who already believe, for example, that justice is a virtue, but not for those ready to examine and perhaps challenge or abandon that kind of view.

What is the final cause of a pie?

to be eaten

being said of another or not being said of another

tracks whether something is universal or not ( in which case it is particular) so if something can be said of another hting it is universal if it cant be said of another you are pointing to a particular thing

Aristotles method for disproving parmenides

trying ot understnad why puzzles paradoes and argumetns that are apparently compelling are only apparently compelling finding some truth in differend and opposing views nothing comes ouf ot nothing: true why? because is osmething came out of nothing, there would be no reason why it came to be now rather htan earlier of later, here or osmwhere else ( the principle of sufficient reason) so he agrees that if there is suchaa hting as change we must be ble to understand it change is always chagne of a subject htat exists prior to during and after change the man becoems muscial the not muscial becomes man the problem: how can being arise form not being? the answer aristotles theory of potentiality adnd actuality

true being

unintelligible world; forms are what they are in themselves their existence and being what htey are does not depend on anything else

appetite and reason book 2

we say that some people are thirsty sometimes yet unwilling ot drink isn't it that their is an element in their sould urging them to drink and also one stopping them doesn't hte element doign hte stopping arise form rational calcualtion while hte thigns that drive and drag are present because of feelign and disease it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to claim then that there are two elements different from one another; the rationally calculating element, and hte irrational/appetitive element

Consequences with Zeno's paradox

we start with if motion occurs it occurs in the present but zeno's paradox motion and rest are not properties we can ascribe to things on the basis of how they are in the present now. they are propositions we attribute to things because they were in different locations in the past from those they are in now.

Socrates philosophical mission

welath, fame, power can all be misused unless right knowledge and characteristics according to socrates finds that no one has this knowledge and no one is willing ot admit that they don't know wealth fame power sometiems called eteranl goods; many say no value unless knowledge and virtue are in the person as well socrates says he doesn't have the knowledge he is tryign to find out what this knowledge is

Euthyphro's 3rd definition

what all gods hate is impious and what they all love is pioius

What is must be ungenerated proof

what is canno be and can't be htought of if it comes to be then it comes to be from what is not. nothing can come from what does not eist nothing that truly is comes to be

what is cannot perish proof

what is cannot be if what is passes it passes to what is not nothing can pass away into what is not nothing that truly is passes away

Euthyphros 2nd definition

what is dear to the gods is pious what is not is impious

void

what is not eists considered to be necessary condition for motion

socrates question

what is piety

Participation of forms

what is the nature of participation? Aristotole: platos metaphor is empty Plotinus: mirroring

justince in the city book 2

what remainsi n the city is the power that makes it possible for all of these to arise in it, and htat preserves themwhen they ahve arisen for as long as it remains there itself when all classes do own job and notoher jobs because this make city good nad mkae right decisions need to see if can be aplied to human to see if irght kind ofjustice justice: a harmony between the parts ofh te city achieved by adhering to the principle that each part hsould do its own work and not meedle or interferee iwth hte work of any part

Presocratics on forms

what truly eists is the basic element everythinglese is just a modification of this element

What is the source of Socrates' dissatisfaction with current common-sense or even philosophical explanations? What does he object to? What are his requirements for explanations?

• 3 dissatisfactions with current common-sense or even philosophical explanations 1. People explain 1 thing with more than one things/phenomena a. For example: The guy in the middle is 2 inches shorter than the guy in the left and 2 inches taller than the guy in the right at the same time. You can't be both short and tall, because those are 2 different/incompatible phenomena 2. People give multiple explanations for 1 phenomena 3. Explanations are given that are not sufficient or necessary. . For example: some people eat but do not grow.

How is the distinction between matter and form related to the doctrine of the four causes?

• Although there is only 1 way in which one can refer to the role of matter, there are 3 distinct ways in which we can refer to the role that the form plays when we analyze or explain something. • Matter is composed of a substance X, for matter to be formed the matter has to have a structure

What is Aristotle's reply to Parmenides' and Zeno's denial of change?

• Parmenides and Zeno argued that change is impossible because it is not intelligible. • Parmenides: we can only speak or think about what is but to think or speak of change requires thinking or speaking of what is not as well. • Zeno: his paradoxes show that the idea of change or motion is inconsistent. • At least, some things we perceive, that is at least some of the regular material objects, have essences or natures: the primary substances. • Although their particular natures can perish (as when an animal or a plant dies), they are stable at least in two ways: • As long as the primary substance exists, it always has the same nature even if it undergoes great number of changes through its existence: • Even when a particular primary substance perishes, the species or kind that it belongs to (i.e., the secondary substance), does not.