Plato

Lived from 427BC 347BC Developed theory of forms Plato was a student of Socrates Wrote in dialogues in which various characters discuss philosophical issues Best known work is The Republic, contains Analogy of the Cave Was a dualist believed soul and body were separate entities Said soul is a substance which cannot be destroyed Said soul always is, never perishes Different to Christian belief; soul comes from M.O.C

Plato's theory of forms Plato said that things around us in the physical world are always changing therefore they can never be the object of completely true knowledge. He said different realities must exist from which we can gain true knowledge According to Plato, the forms were in a hierarchy with the Form of the Good being at the top. Wisdom, Justice etc are below the Form of the Good.

Plato's analogy of the Cave The simile of Plato's cave represents many things Theory of forms His reasons for thinking philosophers were most fitted for leader roles Knowing reality as it is Graphically demonstrating nature of philosophy and enlightenment What different parts of Platos analogy of the Cave mean Cave Realm of appearances, world we live in Shadows on the wall Paintings and illusions Fire Sun, which gives light to this world Objects carried on poles Things we see around us in this world Criticisms of the Analogy of the Cave Good comes in many different varieties, there cannot be one single Form of good Goodness of a person may be different to a goodness of a sofa Plato says there are only forms for opposites e.g. good and bad and beautiful and ugly. In the Republic he talks about a form for everything Theory of Forms can encourage an infinite regress. Different colours of paper clips would have different forms. Adding a layer of forms

Aristotle 384BC - 322 BC Described as great thinker At 17, became a student at Platos Academy Became teacher at the Academy and remained for 20 years Opened own school of philosophy called the Lyceum During 13 years spent at Lyceum composed most of writings Four causes Better word to describe cause is aitia - reason behind something Began by noticing the world was in a constant stae of motion (change from potential to an actual state). Eg: firewood to fire Transition from potential to actual state lead Aristotle to believe that there are four causes which cause this transition to occur: Material Cause: What something is made from. Without this cause the object would not exist. Statue is made from bronze Chair is made from wood and metal Efficient Cause: What brings the object about, without this the object would not exist. Can be a natural (clouds becoming heavy) agent for natural phenomenon(rain) Statue is made by scultor Chair is made by carpenter Formal Cause: What form the object is in, without this particular form the object would not be the certain object. Statue is in the form of a statue Chair is in the form of a chair Final Cause: The purpose for which a thing exists; what purpose it is providing A statue exists to be admired A chair exists to provide a person with somewhere to comfortably sit Formal Cause is more important than Final Cause as material can change over time but the object will still be the same object Statute would still be statute even if eroded by rain Chair will still be a be a chair even if the wood has decayed The 4 causes arent independent but depend on each other and operate at the same time. E.g. a house would not just be a bricks and other building material - this would just be the matter of the house There is a close connection between the Formal and Final cause as everything exists to make fully its actual form. The acrons Final cause is to become an oak tree

It can change from an acron to an oak tree to realise its potential

The Prime Mover One of the questions which troubled Aristotle was the existence of the universe as whole Aristole believed that nature does not act without purpose, something must have initiated the change. Aristotle links the Final cause to the Prime Mover - the reason for being The Prime Mover must cause be a cause that actualises potential in everything Criticisms: Aristotle completely rejects the reason as a source of knowledge. This view on God are based on rational deduction rather than wholly empirical evidence. Does everything have an ultimate purpose(final cause)? Perhaps the universe and life came about by chance and obey the laws of science Idea of uncaused cause is self-defeating. If nothing can come about by itself, then how can there be an uncaused God? If God has no physical interaction with the universe and is pure thought, then how and why is everything drawn to him. How can he cause matter to act if he is immortal ?