Aristotle's Conception Of The Discipline Of Philosophy Case Study

1718 Words 7 Pages
1) What is Aristotle’s conception of the discipline of philosophy in Metaphysics, Bk. alpha? What is his strategy for addressing this issue? How does he proceed? What is his assessment of his predecessors? Explain. What is his reasoning? Is his assessment justified? Why or why not?

In Metaphysics, Bk. Alpha, Aristotle’s conception of the disciple of philosophy is very interesting. He claims that there has been a movement from past beliefs and an entire new discipline of philosophy has emerged, one that is interested in primary being. He states that philosophy is made up of truths that have been discovered through people’s experiences as well as general knowledge of science in the world. He addresses the issue by proposing the theory
…show more content…
He stated that essences are changeless, eternal, immaterial, perfect, and knowledge; that the particulars were changing, ephemeral, material, imperfect, perception, and opinion. His criticism of the Platonism Theory stemmed from the feeling that it lacked explanatory power. He states that it is implausible that essence be removed from something. Overall, Aristotle knew that the old ways of philosophy did not address or explain as thoroughly as they should have for complete understanding. I believe his assessment is justified because it takes philosophy to another level in which there are more questions being answered logically rather than leaving them to the unknown.

2) What is Aristotle’s theory of the four becauses? Explain. What is his reasoning? What is he attempting to achieve by means of this account? How is this integral to his philosophical enterprise? Is his account successful? Why or why
…show more content…
His feelings are that substance is primary because a substance must exist for the other categories to exist, while none of those categories can exists without pertaining to some substance in the first place. Aristotle’s view also focuses on syllogistic logic which has a subject term and predicate term in the categorical sense. He states that due to syllogistic logic, meaning the ability to draw a conclusion based on other things assumed to be true, a person can talk univocally, equivocally, and derivatively on these categories. For example, it is assumed knowledge that horses are mammals, and that no birds are mammals; this is an example of speaking in definite univocal terms. However, some horses are spotted, but others are not spotted; this is an example of speaking of qualities that a horse may or may not have which is perceived as an equivocal statement. While there is an ability to speak absolutely in some sense when referring to these categories of being, there is also a lot of ambiguity as not all things must share the exact same categories to be the same thing or to have being. All in all, I believe his account is the most successful thus far in philosophical terms. His account is both detailed and broad in the same sense, and while it needs to be clarified in a sense, he is able to somehow define how things have being based on science and the ability for a person

Related Documents