Plato And Aristotle

Phl 303 Lecture 2:Plato and Aristotle Lecture 2: Plato and Aristotle I. Plato's Radical Idea Plato vs. the Sophists Plato's Radical Claim Plato's Method II. Aristotle's Refinement of the Idea Aristotle's Theory of the World Aristotle's Theory of Happinesss

A. Plato vs. the Sophists Plato is attacking 3 theses of the Sophists: 1. Value is relative: if something seems right/good to you, it is right/good for you. No gap between reality and appearance. 2. Virtue is a second-best option. Valuable only as a means to greater social reward. The very best option: prosperous immorality.. 3. Moral norms are social constructs, purely conventional. Plato counters these with an alternative theory. Analogy between physical health and health of the soul/mind. 1. Both are anchored in facts about human nature. 2. Both can be studied scientifically, objectively. 3. Both are valued for their own sake. Key: distinction between appearance and reality. Appearing healthy vs. really being healthy. Pleasure is the appearance of health, not the underlying reality. The distinction between appearance and reality leads to a second distinction: Doing what one pleases Doing what one wills We will the ultimate object of our acts. When we take medicine, we will to be healthy. When we enter business, we will to make profit. We can make mistakes. Then we do what we please, but not what we will. •

Taking a quack cure.

•

Investing in Russian stock options.

•

Living an immoral life.

Ultimately,we all will to be happy, to lead a good life, to live well ("eudaemonia") What is happiness?

B. Plato's radical claim: To be virtuous,even with torture,ignominy, and death, is to live better than to be vicious with prosperity and long life. One should pity the wicked, especially if they escape punishment! How does Plato defend this claim?

C. The Socratic method "My method is to call in support of my statements the evidence of a single witness, the man I am arguing with." Asking questions, and guiding the reasoning of the participant, step by step. Assumption: there are things you cannot not know. Natural knowledge of ethics. This knowledge can be implicit (suppressed?). Socratic questioning is used to make the knowledge explicit, conscious. The arguments: 1. To act righteously is to do a fine thing. 2. Fine things are either pleasant or beneficial, or both. 3. To act righteously is not (typically) pleasant. Therefore, to act righteously is beneficial. 1. To punish an evildoer is to do a fine thing to him. 2. Fine things are either pleasant or beneficial or both. 3. To be punished is not pleasant. Therefore, to be punished is beneficial. Problems with the arguments? Pleasant or beneficial to whom? To the one acting righteously, or to others in his society, or to disinterested onlookers? To the one being punished, or to the punishers, or to third parties? The proofs are inconclusive. What is important: Plato has proposed an alternative to the relativism of the Sophists, one that is open to scientific,philosophical inquiry. 1. All human beings will the same thing-- to live well. 2. Living well consists in being virtuous. If this is correct, it follows that: 1. Value is not relative to the subjective perception of the individual. There are true and false perceptions of happiness. 2. Moral virtue is valuable in itself, not merely as a means to getting on in society.

3. The standard of value and of moral virtue is to be found in human nature, not in social conventions. Is it correct?

II. Aristotle's Refinement of the Idea Aristotle: student of Plato, teacher of Alexander the Great. Father of Biology.

A. Aristotle's Theory of the World Aristotle rejected the materialism of many of his predecessors: Empedocles, Democritus. The Four Causes (ways of explaining things): 1. Formal 2. Final (teleological) 3. Efficient 4. Material The standard example: a bronze commemorative statue 1. Formal cause: shape of the bronze, its resemblance to military hero on horseback 2. Final cause: its purpose as a commemoration of bravery and service 3. Efficient cause: its origin in a bronze forge 4. Material cause: the mixture of metals in its alloy Organs have all 4 causes: the heart 1. Formal cause: the specific configuration of parts that make up a healthy, working heart 2. Final cause: its purpose as a blood pump 3. Efficient cause: its origin in the intrauterine development of the fetus 4. Material cause: the various tissues (muscle, blood vessels, nerves) that constitute its substance Organisms also: the human being 1. Formal cause: the human "soul", with three aspects: vegetative, perceptual/motor, and rational 2. Final cause: eudaemonia 3. Efficient cause: the processes of human reproduction 4. Material cause: the various organs and internal systems Atomism vs. Holism Atomists (materialists): the parts are prior to the whole. The whole (human being) can be understood completely by understanding the parts of the body and their interaction. Holists (Aristotle): the whole is prior to the parts. The parts of the body cannot be understood apart from the contribution they make to the proper functioning of the whole. Key issue: legitimacy of final/teleological explanation.

Do organic systems (including human beings) really have purposes, have they really been designed, or do they only appear so?

B. Aristotle on Happiness What is Happiness? The comprehensive, ultimate final cause of human life -- the end for which humans have been designed. Distinguish Three Things: 1. Necessary conditions for happiness

Material goods, freedom, virtue, health, availability of friends, rest and recreation 2. Components of happiness

Intellectual activity (learning, inquiring, contemplating), active civic/political life, friendship, sports/athletics, creating/enjoying art 3. By-products and symptoms of happiness

Pleasure, enjoyment, contentment Disagrees with Plato: virtue and health are not components of happiness -- they are necessary conditions of happiness Disagrees with the hedonist: pleasure is not happiness, it is merely an indicator or perception of happiness. Can have false, illusory pleasures. Aristotle's definition: Happiness is a complete, active life, lived according to reason.

How does Aristotle identify happiness? •

Subjective step: happiness = our most final end, the self-sufficient end.

•

Objective step: our most final, self-sufficent end = our final cause.

The Subjective Step •

All of our actions have a purpose or end: either internal (for their own sake) or external (as means to a further end).

•

There must be some thing that are final ends -- desired for themselves, not merely as ends.

•

Happiness is, by definition, our ³most final end²

•

Happiness is most final: we always desire it for itself, never for anything else.

•

Happiness is clearly self-sufficient: if you have happiness, what more could you want?

The Objective Step •

Assume that human beings have a function (the performing of which is our final cause) and that our will (including our desires and our deliberations) are themselves functional.

•

Aristotle assumes a principle of harmony: the functioning of a part contributes to the functioning of the whole.

1. Our most final end is that which (through the agency of the willl) most reliably shapes our lives as a whole. 2. What most reliably shapes our lives as a whole, through the agency of some functional part, is our final cause. 3. Happiness is our most final end. 4. Therefore, happiness = our final cause. Last updated February 5, 2001 Created by: Robert C. Koons Send comments to: [email protected] Phl 303 Home Page | Phl 303 Lecture Outlines | Philosophy Department | Prof. Koons | UT Austin Web Central