Tab 1
, PHILOSOPHY OVERVIEW
1) ANCIENT PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCES
Plato: utilised a priori reasoning, thinking that certain truths of the universe are known by the mind alone.
This perspective is also known as rationalism.
To truly understand the nature of reality, one must look beyond the
senses, as our senses can be incorrect and lead us to false conclusions.
Plato demonstrates this belief with his analogy of the cave.
The prisoner in the cave believes that the shadows on the wall that he
perceives are the real objects, when they in fact are not. His senses are
deceiving him. The only way the prisoner learns this is by leaving the
cave, and becoming wise to his experiences. We must think about what
is beyond ourselves.
Our minds are trapped in a state of ignorance, which is why we experience imperfect, transient things.
True reality must be perfect, eternal & unchanging.
Plato believed that reality was split into two realms:
The Realm of Appearances: where we dwell on earth, and what we see. Everything around us is
participating in forms of the most pure form (e.g. a tree participates in the Form of a tree. The tree on
earth is subject to change, whereas the Form is not).
The Realm of the Forms: where the realist and purest version of things
found on earth dwell (the forms). There is a hierarchy of the Forms. The
most important one is the Form of the Good, which Plato calls the “Sun” is
his analogy of the cave. True knowledge can only be gained from this realm
The Form of the Good has no activity. It is solely goodness and is what
allows humans to gain knowledge of the other Forms. It nourishes and is
responsible for all the existence of life and all the other forms.
Plato develops his “argument from recollection” to explain that the world of the forms and the soul exist.
He claims that knowledge of things such as beauty of justice are perfect, eternal and unchanging concepts
that we somehow have knowledge of. We also have perfect mathematical concept knowledge, such as the
perfect circle. We have not ever experienced perfect beauty or the perfect circle, so we must have this
knowledge by using a priori reasoning. This is also shown through the story of Meno, the slave boy, who
could do advanced geometry without ever being taught it.
,These concepts must have been with us since we were born. We have a dim recollection of the forms
because our soul apprehends them before becoming trapped in this world.
Therefore:
1) We have a concept of perfect justice and beauty and perfect mathematical concepts.
2) We have never experienced perfect instances of such things.
3) So, our knowledge of perfect concepts must be innate.
4) Therefore there must be a world of forms and we must have a soul which gained perfect concepts
from it before we were born.
STRENGTHS:
1) All humans seem to have a deep rooted idea of what goodness is
2) An argument that does not incorporate empiricism is harder to scientifically disprove
3) No chance of fallacies in sensory deception
WEAKNESSES:
1) The Form of the Good has no practical value
2) There is no empirical evidence to affirm the truth in anything Plato says.
3) Philosophers Richard Dawkins thinks it is nonsensical to think that there is a transcendent
world.
4) Philosopher A.J. Ayer questions if all forms of intelligence can come from another realm. Surely
emotional intelligence cannot, as this is built and refined by human experiences.
Aristotle: opposed his teacher Plato’s perspective of how to perceive the nature of reality. Aristotle
utilised a posteriori reasoning, understanding the world through empiricism.
He attempted to explain why things are the way that they are by looking at the purpose they serve. This is
known as “telos”.
Aristotle thought that the basis of nature is substance, and that to analyse how something goes from cause
to effect, this can be broken down into four causes:
1) The material cause → what things are made up of (e.g. the material cause of a chair is wood)
2) The formal cause → the defining characteristic of the thing (e.g. the formal cause of a chair is
its legs, back..)
3) The efficient cause → what brings it into existence (e.g. the efficient cause of a chair is the
carpenter)
4) The final cause → the purpose of the thing (e.g. the final cause of a chair is to be sat on)
,When applying this to the universe, Aristotle concluded that the final cause of it must be the Prime
Mover. As all things are changing and moving towards their telos, the thing that causes the four causes
must be an uncaused first cause. The Prime Mover must therefore be unmoved and unchanging (pure
actuality). It is responsible for the everlasting motion and change of the universe.
The way that the Prime Mover sustains the changes in the world therefore must be due to some sort of
attraction of the things in this world to it. Things in our universe are moving towards their telos, as a
result of the Prime Mover sustaining the pattern of change from actuality to potentiality in the universe. It
does not interact with creation.
STRENGTHS:
1) Allows a breakdown of the nature of reality which we can empirically perceive and test.
2) More simplistic to understand that Plato’s ideas
3) Theologian Aquinas heavily builds on Aristotle’s ideas, and he is widely viewed as influential
and correct by vast religious scholars
WEAKNESSES:
1) The concept of telos could be challenged by ideas from Satre. He argued that there was no
objective telos because “existence precedes essence”. This means that humans exist before they
have a defined purpose, and have to come up with a purpose themselves. People cling onto the
idea of having a destined telos because they are scared of not having a purpose.
2) Nihilistic ideas from figures such as Neitzche argue that what if the universe simply has no
purpose? If there is no God who gives things purpose, then there is no such thing as telos.
3) Physics laws, such as Newton’s Third Law challenge ideas that an object that is moved will
simply stop moving when it has reached its telos. Newtons stated that “every action has an equal
and opposite reaction”, meaning that an unmoved Prime Mover does not make sense, as there
should be a corresponding movement back from the universe.
THE FORM OF THE GOOD vs THE PRIME MOVER
Similarities Differences
1) Both based more theoretically when 1) The Form of the Good explains universals
explained and knowledge, whereas the PM explains
2) Both are profoundly influential in the motion and purpose
development of the Christian 2) The Form of the Good develops the
understanding of God. philosophy of idealism and abstract
3) Both have an independent “necessary” forms, whereas the PM is focused on
existence teleology, explaining the purpose and
4) Both do not participate in the moral cause of things.
affairs of humanity 3) The Form of the Good is abstract,
whereas the PM is a concrete,
metaphysical being.
, WHAT IS THE BETTER APPROACH FOR MAKING SENSE OF REALITY, RATIONALISM OR
EMPIRICISM?
RATIONALISM EMPIRICISM
True knowledge comes from reason True knowledge begins with utilising the senses
The senses are unreliable, and only grasp the The senses are essential, and provide clear
appearances of what we see empirical data for developing an understanding of
what we perceive and the nature of what is around
us
Knowledge is gained through reasoning about Knowledge is gained through observing the
eternal Forms or ideas physical worlds and deriving principles.
Ultimate reality is beyond the physical world (the Reality is grounded in the physical and observable
Forms world.
2) SOUL, MIND & BODY
There are four main perspectives surrounding the concept of the soul:
Dualism: the view that there are two different types of existence - mental & physical
Substance dualism: the two different types of existence are two different substances. A substance is a type
of existence which cannot be broken down into anything further.
Monism: there is one kind of existence
Materialism: the one kind of existence is physical substance
Descartes: he holds a substance dualism perspective. The one piece of absolute knowledge is that we
cannot doubt that we are doubting. This is demonstrated through his famous phrase: ‘cogito ergo sum’ or
‘I think, therefore, I am’.
He argued that the mind & the body are two separate substances. The mind is non-physical
(meaning that it is not divisible), has no specific location and is where our thoughts, feelings and
conscience exist. However, the body is physical, and follows physical laws. The two are separate, but
interact with each other. The mind can cause the body to act, and physical sensations from the body
can affect the mind (such as pain) → the place where the mind and the body interact is in the pineal
gland in the brain.
1) Doubting the body and proving the soul → the senses have a record of being unreliable.
However, what if they were unreliable all the time? How would we know? Therefore, the
only thing that we can truly trust is that we exist (‘I think, therefore, I am’ - ‘cogito ergo sum’).
There is a ‘thinking’ part of us.
, PHILOSOPHY OVERVIEW
1) ANCIENT PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCES
Plato: utilised a priori reasoning, thinking that certain truths of the universe are known by the mind alone.
This perspective is also known as rationalism.
To truly understand the nature of reality, one must look beyond the
senses, as our senses can be incorrect and lead us to false conclusions.
Plato demonstrates this belief with his analogy of the cave.
The prisoner in the cave believes that the shadows on the wall that he
perceives are the real objects, when they in fact are not. His senses are
deceiving him. The only way the prisoner learns this is by leaving the
cave, and becoming wise to his experiences. We must think about what
is beyond ourselves.
Our minds are trapped in a state of ignorance, which is why we experience imperfect, transient things.
True reality must be perfect, eternal & unchanging.
Plato believed that reality was split into two realms:
The Realm of Appearances: where we dwell on earth, and what we see. Everything around us is
participating in forms of the most pure form (e.g. a tree participates in the Form of a tree. The tree on
earth is subject to change, whereas the Form is not).
The Realm of the Forms: where the realist and purest version of things
found on earth dwell (the forms). There is a hierarchy of the Forms. The
most important one is the Form of the Good, which Plato calls the “Sun” is
his analogy of the cave. True knowledge can only be gained from this realm
The Form of the Good has no activity. It is solely goodness and is what
allows humans to gain knowledge of the other Forms. It nourishes and is
responsible for all the existence of life and all the other forms.
Plato develops his “argument from recollection” to explain that the world of the forms and the soul exist.
He claims that knowledge of things such as beauty of justice are perfect, eternal and unchanging concepts
that we somehow have knowledge of. We also have perfect mathematical concept knowledge, such as the
perfect circle. We have not ever experienced perfect beauty or the perfect circle, so we must have this
knowledge by using a priori reasoning. This is also shown through the story of Meno, the slave boy, who
could do advanced geometry without ever being taught it.
,These concepts must have been with us since we were born. We have a dim recollection of the forms
because our soul apprehends them before becoming trapped in this world.
Therefore:
1) We have a concept of perfect justice and beauty and perfect mathematical concepts.
2) We have never experienced perfect instances of such things.
3) So, our knowledge of perfect concepts must be innate.
4) Therefore there must be a world of forms and we must have a soul which gained perfect concepts
from it before we were born.
STRENGTHS:
1) All humans seem to have a deep rooted idea of what goodness is
2) An argument that does not incorporate empiricism is harder to scientifically disprove
3) No chance of fallacies in sensory deception
WEAKNESSES:
1) The Form of the Good has no practical value
2) There is no empirical evidence to affirm the truth in anything Plato says.
3) Philosophers Richard Dawkins thinks it is nonsensical to think that there is a transcendent
world.
4) Philosopher A.J. Ayer questions if all forms of intelligence can come from another realm. Surely
emotional intelligence cannot, as this is built and refined by human experiences.
Aristotle: opposed his teacher Plato’s perspective of how to perceive the nature of reality. Aristotle
utilised a posteriori reasoning, understanding the world through empiricism.
He attempted to explain why things are the way that they are by looking at the purpose they serve. This is
known as “telos”.
Aristotle thought that the basis of nature is substance, and that to analyse how something goes from cause
to effect, this can be broken down into four causes:
1) The material cause → what things are made up of (e.g. the material cause of a chair is wood)
2) The formal cause → the defining characteristic of the thing (e.g. the formal cause of a chair is
its legs, back..)
3) The efficient cause → what brings it into existence (e.g. the efficient cause of a chair is the
carpenter)
4) The final cause → the purpose of the thing (e.g. the final cause of a chair is to be sat on)
,When applying this to the universe, Aristotle concluded that the final cause of it must be the Prime
Mover. As all things are changing and moving towards their telos, the thing that causes the four causes
must be an uncaused first cause. The Prime Mover must therefore be unmoved and unchanging (pure
actuality). It is responsible for the everlasting motion and change of the universe.
The way that the Prime Mover sustains the changes in the world therefore must be due to some sort of
attraction of the things in this world to it. Things in our universe are moving towards their telos, as a
result of the Prime Mover sustaining the pattern of change from actuality to potentiality in the universe. It
does not interact with creation.
STRENGTHS:
1) Allows a breakdown of the nature of reality which we can empirically perceive and test.
2) More simplistic to understand that Plato’s ideas
3) Theologian Aquinas heavily builds on Aristotle’s ideas, and he is widely viewed as influential
and correct by vast religious scholars
WEAKNESSES:
1) The concept of telos could be challenged by ideas from Satre. He argued that there was no
objective telos because “existence precedes essence”. This means that humans exist before they
have a defined purpose, and have to come up with a purpose themselves. People cling onto the
idea of having a destined telos because they are scared of not having a purpose.
2) Nihilistic ideas from figures such as Neitzche argue that what if the universe simply has no
purpose? If there is no God who gives things purpose, then there is no such thing as telos.
3) Physics laws, such as Newton’s Third Law challenge ideas that an object that is moved will
simply stop moving when it has reached its telos. Newtons stated that “every action has an equal
and opposite reaction”, meaning that an unmoved Prime Mover does not make sense, as there
should be a corresponding movement back from the universe.
THE FORM OF THE GOOD vs THE PRIME MOVER
Similarities Differences
1) Both based more theoretically when 1) The Form of the Good explains universals
explained and knowledge, whereas the PM explains
2) Both are profoundly influential in the motion and purpose
development of the Christian 2) The Form of the Good develops the
understanding of God. philosophy of idealism and abstract
3) Both have an independent “necessary” forms, whereas the PM is focused on
existence teleology, explaining the purpose and
4) Both do not participate in the moral cause of things.
affairs of humanity 3) The Form of the Good is abstract,
whereas the PM is a concrete,
metaphysical being.
, WHAT IS THE BETTER APPROACH FOR MAKING SENSE OF REALITY, RATIONALISM OR
EMPIRICISM?
RATIONALISM EMPIRICISM
True knowledge comes from reason True knowledge begins with utilising the senses
The senses are unreliable, and only grasp the The senses are essential, and provide clear
appearances of what we see empirical data for developing an understanding of
what we perceive and the nature of what is around
us
Knowledge is gained through reasoning about Knowledge is gained through observing the
eternal Forms or ideas physical worlds and deriving principles.
Ultimate reality is beyond the physical world (the Reality is grounded in the physical and observable
Forms world.
2) SOUL, MIND & BODY
There are four main perspectives surrounding the concept of the soul:
Dualism: the view that there are two different types of existence - mental & physical
Substance dualism: the two different types of existence are two different substances. A substance is a type
of existence which cannot be broken down into anything further.
Monism: there is one kind of existence
Materialism: the one kind of existence is physical substance
Descartes: he holds a substance dualism perspective. The one piece of absolute knowledge is that we
cannot doubt that we are doubting. This is demonstrated through his famous phrase: ‘cogito ergo sum’ or
‘I think, therefore, I am’.
He argued that the mind & the body are two separate substances. The mind is non-physical
(meaning that it is not divisible), has no specific location and is where our thoughts, feelings and
conscience exist. However, the body is physical, and follows physical laws. The two are separate, but
interact with each other. The mind can cause the body to act, and physical sensations from the body
can affect the mind (such as pain) → the place where the mind and the body interact is in the pineal
gland in the brain.
1) Doubting the body and proving the soul → the senses have a record of being unreliable.
However, what if they were unreliable all the time? How would we know? Therefore, the
only thing that we can truly trust is that we exist (‘I think, therefore, I am’ - ‘cogito ergo sum’).
There is a ‘thinking’ part of us.
