Plan:
‘Aristotle is wrong to think worthwhile knowledge can be gained
though sense experience’
Introduction:
- Two methods of gaining knowledge- Plato and rationalism vs Aristotle and
empiricism, what do they consist of and give examples
- The four causes of Aristotle- believed in methods of observation that are still used in
modern day science and medicine.
- Contradiction to the world of forms and the changing nature of the world
- In my opinion Aristotle’s method of gaining knowledge through sensual experience is
more valid than gaining knowledge through rational thought and reason, so I do not
think he is wrong to think that this is a worthwhile method of gaining true
knowledge, as it is the only knowledge that can be applied to our everyday life.
First paragraph in support of statement:
- Some philosophers may argue that gaining knowledge through sensual experience is
not of use to us as the everyday world is ever changing so our sense cannot be
trusted. For example sight can be manipulated- pen in water has a different
appearance.
- Plato would support this train of thought because he believes in two forms of reality
existing in the mind and body- the world of appearances and world of forms.
Everything that can be experienced through our senses is only a poor imitation of
true reality that exists in the world of forms. If we trusted everything that existed in
this world that we physically experienced, then our reality would constantly be
changing and full of imperfections.
- Aristotle would argue against this and defend his philosophy of empiricism because
he believed that the primary source of knowledge had to come from the world
around us because the nature of the world was changing so the only true way to
understand it would be to understand why it changes and the purpose of every
object.
- Encountering the world through our senses allows for us to form concepts and
beliefs of our own. He believed that perception is what misleads us; how can we know if
the colour one person sees is the same as the colour another person sees? Although the
idea of empiricism says that knowledge can be reached by reflecting on sense experience,
this experience always comes first, showing it is of increased importance. A wise person
to a rationalist would be someone who has spent time in contemplation, whereas a wise
person to an empiricist is someone who has lived through many experiences (cultures,
countries, etc).
Second paragraph in support of Aristotle:
- True knowledge and reality should be based on experience because society and the
world around us is constantly changing. If we had a fixed idea of everything and
knowledge based on fixed concepts, then the world would be chaotic. This comes as
the world is constant changing so societal norms and political circumstances are every
‘Aristotle is wrong to think worthwhile knowledge can be gained
though sense experience’
Introduction:
- Two methods of gaining knowledge- Plato and rationalism vs Aristotle and
empiricism, what do they consist of and give examples
- The four causes of Aristotle- believed in methods of observation that are still used in
modern day science and medicine.
- Contradiction to the world of forms and the changing nature of the world
- In my opinion Aristotle’s method of gaining knowledge through sensual experience is
more valid than gaining knowledge through rational thought and reason, so I do not
think he is wrong to think that this is a worthwhile method of gaining true
knowledge, as it is the only knowledge that can be applied to our everyday life.
First paragraph in support of statement:
- Some philosophers may argue that gaining knowledge through sensual experience is
not of use to us as the everyday world is ever changing so our sense cannot be
trusted. For example sight can be manipulated- pen in water has a different
appearance.
- Plato would support this train of thought because he believes in two forms of reality
existing in the mind and body- the world of appearances and world of forms.
Everything that can be experienced through our senses is only a poor imitation of
true reality that exists in the world of forms. If we trusted everything that existed in
this world that we physically experienced, then our reality would constantly be
changing and full of imperfections.
- Aristotle would argue against this and defend his philosophy of empiricism because
he believed that the primary source of knowledge had to come from the world
around us because the nature of the world was changing so the only true way to
understand it would be to understand why it changes and the purpose of every
object.
- Encountering the world through our senses allows for us to form concepts and
beliefs of our own. He believed that perception is what misleads us; how can we know if
the colour one person sees is the same as the colour another person sees? Although the
idea of empiricism says that knowledge can be reached by reflecting on sense experience,
this experience always comes first, showing it is of increased importance. A wise person
to a rationalist would be someone who has spent time in contemplation, whereas a wise
person to an empiricist is someone who has lived through many experiences (cultures,
countries, etc).
Second paragraph in support of Aristotle:
- True knowledge and reality should be based on experience because society and the
world around us is constantly changing. If we had a fixed idea of everything and
knowledge based on fixed concepts, then the world would be chaotic. This comes as
the world is constant changing so societal norms and political circumstances are every
