Metaphysics is the question what is really real in Core 250, as the second part of the core program here at Whitworth University. Trying to tackle the question of metaphysis a Greek philosopher named Plato believed there are two separate worlds in existence, there is one world where there are the material objects and then the other world contains the non-material objects or the “shadows.” However, another philosopher who followed Plato believed is the matter of the universe, form of the world, and the actuality and potentiality. Plato’s answer to the nature of the world was the two worlds scenario, where there is a material world which is all physical things we can touch, like ourselves as humans. The immaterial world also called the forms,
…show more content…
However, they both have their strengths and weaknesses in their way of philosophy. Starting with Aristotle, one weakness I can see in his view in metaphysics analyzing this with more knowledge then was known in 384 B.C.E, something seems to be missing in his definition, what he believes is understandable but I feel there needs to be more of a thought in what he thinks. Looking how he critiques Plato’s definition of metaphysis he’s in depth in what he believes is false about his idea but reading his ideas over he doesn’t add depth. A strength in what Aristotle thinks is how he addresses more than just things and non-material things, he addresses what material things could be made of and the different forms material things come from. Plato’s strongest point in metaphysics is how it can relate to many different type of people with different faith beliefs, and they can have their own way of thinking when it comes to the immaterial world. However, where we can look at a place Plato’s weaknesses, is I believe Plato was pushing more with how to live your life, in the Myth of the Cave, rather proving what is real. Going out and learning what is really real after living in a cave for their life, and being let out and learning everything’s as brand new things as they were to them. With that said, its more to live your life like everything is brand new rather than experiencing things as brand
However, they both have their strengths and weaknesses in their way of philosophy. Starting with Aristotle, one weakness I can see in his view in metaphysics analyzing this with more knowledge then was known in 384 B.C.E, something seems to be missing in his definition, what he believes is understandable but I feel there needs to be more of a thought in what he thinks. Looking how he critiques Plato’s definition of metaphysis he’s in depth in what he believes is false about his idea but reading his ideas over he doesn’t add depth. A strength in what Aristotle thinks is how he addresses more than just things and non-material things, he addresses what material things could be made of and the different forms material things come from. Plato’s strongest point in metaphysics is how it can relate to many different type of people with different faith beliefs, and they can have their own way of thinking when it comes to the immaterial world. However, where we can look at a place Plato’s weaknesses, is I believe Plato was pushing more with how to live your life, in the Myth of the Cave, rather proving what is real. Going out and learning what is really real after living in a cave for their life, and being let out and learning everything’s as brand new things as they were to them. With that said, its more to live your life like everything is brand new rather than experiencing things as brand