101844922
PHIL 3000
Paper 2
1. What is the problem of change and how does Aristotle answer it?
Parmenides argued that there cannot be any change. He believed that everything acted as parts of a unified and unchanging whole. Thus change is only an illusion as nothing is capable of inherently changing due to reality being unchangeable. He believed that only Being exists and nothing can exist outside the sphere of Being. Nothing can come to be from what it is not. Aristotle offers a solution to the problem of change through his distinction between potentiality and actuality and also through the use of the four causes. In order to get change, you must start with something, as nothing can come from nothing, but for it to change, it cannot be …show more content…
While we may know the cause of event Y, we may not have any knowledge on why Y was the outcome. For Aristotle, cause included the purpose or explanation of the change. The question of why outcome Y happened rather than another outcome is included. In the modern conception of cause, these two things are examined typically apart from one another. Causation is examined as the relation among the events and leaves the explanation of the outcome as its own concept. Now days, causation in terms of rising temperatures is the relation between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures. Thinking on why the temperatures rise is typically left for another study. Another difference is the modern conception of causality usually implies a sequence of two events. Aristotle’s conception can be the things themselves. If Delia made a cake, the modern conception would summarize the cause as again a relation between two events, it was her son’s birthday and she needed to make a cake. Whereas with Aristotle’s conception of cause allows for things to be the cause. The efficient cause would be Delia including the knowledge she …show more content…
By having the requisite of the outcomes being mutually exclusive, a proposition cannot be: (a). both true and false, a contradiction, and (b). neither true nor false, a gap. This created a problem for Aristotle when thinking about future contingencies as it lead to fatalism. Using the principle of bivalence, when applying truth-values to a future contingent proposition, both outcomes become fixed and fall under fatalistic result. Aristotle believed that fatalism, or the belief that the future is fixed, was not compatible with the rationality of our behavior particularly deliberation. This is due to fatalism’s claim that our deliberative behavior is a waste of time. This conflicts the idea of free will and our ability to determine the course of the future. In the case of the sea battle, neither proposition, nor any future contingent proposition, has a truth value as they are not necessarily true or false until the realization of the contingent. For Aristotle, the truth or falsity of a future contingent propositions does not exist yet. Propositions expressing future contingencies are contingently true or false rather than necessarily true or false. A problem arises however when denying bivalence. The result leads to an anti-realistic claim on the future which is that nothing at all is going to
PHIL 3000
Paper 2
1. What is the problem of change and how does Aristotle answer it?
Parmenides argued that there cannot be any change. He believed that everything acted as parts of a unified and unchanging whole. Thus change is only an illusion as nothing is capable of inherently changing due to reality being unchangeable. He believed that only Being exists and nothing can exist outside the sphere of Being. Nothing can come to be from what it is not. Aristotle offers a solution to the problem of change through his distinction between potentiality and actuality and also through the use of the four causes. In order to get change, you must start with something, as nothing can come from nothing, but for it to change, it cannot be …show more content…
While we may know the cause of event Y, we may not have any knowledge on why Y was the outcome. For Aristotle, cause included the purpose or explanation of the change. The question of why outcome Y happened rather than another outcome is included. In the modern conception of cause, these two things are examined typically apart from one another. Causation is examined as the relation among the events and leaves the explanation of the outcome as its own concept. Now days, causation in terms of rising temperatures is the relation between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures. Thinking on why the temperatures rise is typically left for another study. Another difference is the modern conception of causality usually implies a sequence of two events. Aristotle’s conception can be the things themselves. If Delia made a cake, the modern conception would summarize the cause as again a relation between two events, it was her son’s birthday and she needed to make a cake. Whereas with Aristotle’s conception of cause allows for things to be the cause. The efficient cause would be Delia including the knowledge she …show more content…
By having the requisite of the outcomes being mutually exclusive, a proposition cannot be: (a). both true and false, a contradiction, and (b). neither true nor false, a gap. This created a problem for Aristotle when thinking about future contingencies as it lead to fatalism. Using the principle of bivalence, when applying truth-values to a future contingent proposition, both outcomes become fixed and fall under fatalistic result. Aristotle believed that fatalism, or the belief that the future is fixed, was not compatible with the rationality of our behavior particularly deliberation. This is due to fatalism’s claim that our deliberative behavior is a waste of time. This conflicts the idea of free will and our ability to determine the course of the future. In the case of the sea battle, neither proposition, nor any future contingent proposition, has a truth value as they are not necessarily true or false until the realization of the contingent. For Aristotle, the truth or falsity of a future contingent propositions does not exist yet. Propositions expressing future contingencies are contingently true or false rather than necessarily true or false. A problem arises however when denying bivalence. The result leads to an anti-realistic claim on the future which is that nothing at all is going to