The Relationship Between Aristotle's Conception of Metaphysics Epistemology and Man's Desire to Know

Socrates was placed at the origins of Skepticism. It was understood that he only asked questions and never taught positive doctrines, many sought to “attempt to make sense of his seemingly paradoxical claim that the one thing he knew was that he knew nothing.” (Gascoigne, 2002) Plato and Aristotle strayed from Socrates path when they claimed to know the truth. Plato viewed knowledge as an awareness of absolute and existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to the philosophers. Though, Aristotle put more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge. Aristotle still accepts the view of such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary principles. Around the Renaissance period, the two main epistemological positions dominated in philosophy are empiricism, in which sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and rationalism sees epistemology as the product of rational reflection (Tempo). Another philosopher by the name of Arcesilaus, gave a renewed form of skepticism, arguing against the opinions of all men. Arcesilaus also claimed that skeptics could make

21.  In pointing out some similarities between the early Greek metaphysicians, Aristotle pointed out that they were all concerned with

Both Philosophers Aristotle and Plato have very different perspectives according to their metaphysics. Plato explains his metaphysics through the story of the allegory of the cave which conveys his story of the Divided Line, while on the other hand Aristotle explains his metaphysics through his idea of actuality versus potentiality which leds him to the discussion of substance. Plato explains his metaphysics in a sense where he mainly discusses the idea of knowledge and truth through ideas, while Aristotle on the other hand explains his metaphysics in a real life sense offering the stronger system for being able to break down his belief in great detail applying it to the real world, which can stem out to being applied to everything.

What is the central difference between metaphysics as Kant conceives it, and metaphysics as Aristotle conceives it? Argue in support of one or the other view.

He began to study and collect sea creatures, and eventually extend his ideas to study sea animal to all living things. He created the first library in Greece, which attracted an impressive amount of scholars to the school he taught at called the Lyceum. Students were able to learn every subject imaginable at the time. Aristotle was credited with being the first thinker to recognize that knowledge is compartmentalized. The school was the center for teaching scientific reasoning and scientific research. Aristotle’s theories, at the time were revolutionary, but were later corrected. In his time he was known as “the man who knew everything.” Aristotle’s influence from his time and even after his death, are considered unparalleled, with the exception of his teacher, Plato his works continue to endure. His writings about how people perceived the world continues to underline many principles, and the knowledge people possessed, because of him people around the world share to solve problems.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

Aristotle was an ancient Greek scientist and philosopher who sought the answer to our existence and the truth of reality. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, a Greek philosopher who was famous for his theory of forms, but following his (Plato’s) death, he changed his views from Platonism to empiricism. Where Plato thought that true reality was based in what was abstract and intangible, Aristotle instead thought of

Watson starts off his work about the idea of metaphysics. He starts off the article asking about why people think Aristotle’s views of metaphysics are useless. Watson talks about the old contrast of Plato being an idealist and Aristotle being an empiricist, but believes this argument is now weak. They both imagine a world full of reality both distinct and separate from the world. Aristotle shifts from this idea and turns to the everyday experience and finds it to be the embodiment of reason. He believes in a well-developed start to the true definition of knowledge and science. The confidence in the power of reason strengthens Aristotle’s view of philosophy even though he knows that science can be studied and interpreted with facts. Watson points out that the concept of reality is metaphysics.

He was the first to study formal logic, founded called the Lyceum and tutored kings. He influenced Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions and beliefs. The Catholic Church took his view of a universal hierarchy and added the divine, the heavenly and the demonic to make their “Great Chain of Being.” Aristotle even had a basic idea of evolution based on God’s plan for the world (IEP). It is possible that he was the last person to know everything there was to know in his own time (Neill 488). His contributions to our understanding of the world are innumerable, despite that only about a third of his work survived. He contributed to philosophy as much as Plato, if not more. He took Plato’s theory of forms and changed it, making it his own, and in the process resolved the problems that he had noted, as well as those pointed out by Plato and others. He called his new theory he called Hylomorphism. Hylomorphism’s way of thinking stands directly opposite that which Plato’s forms encourage. Aristotle did not see the world as a reflection of another filled with forms but as the physical embodiment of the forms. The substances are created by the innate forms in the matter and are the only way we can perceive forms. This means that to Aristotle a substance did not have form only in an abstract world of forms but was contained by the object in and of

In 384 BC, in the town of Stagira on the north coast of the Aegean Sea, one of the most prestigious teachers in history was born. Much like the people of his time, Aristotle raised questions about everyday life that all individuals should consider, however his answers to these questions proved as a far greater accomplishment than those before him. Aristotle was among the first individuals to think philosophically and conduct research to advance knowledge about nature and natural processes. With his abundance of scientific ideas and concepts, it is evident that Aristotle was a great thinker of his time. As a result of this, Aristotle is arguably one of the most prominent philosophers in history that paved the way for modern thinking.

Unlike his teacher, Plato, Aristotle believed that the world could be explained by physical observation. This approach of using the five senses, cataloguing and categorising, is the foundation of scientific study. The approach is known as empiricism. Plato believed that we needed to look beyond the physical for an explanation of the universe in the guise of the World of Forms. Aristotle disagreed with this.

Plato, a man who believed by just thinking about it, you could understand and achieve fully, trained Aristotle in philosophy. Aristotle did not agree on Plato’s belief, and soon came up with his own. He believed that in order to understand, you must observe what is being studied by looking, listening or touching it. Aristotle’s method of studying is now the base of contemporary science. Modern scientists are now engineering more efficient and precise ways of observing. In conclusion, Aristotle awoke the world with the study of live, which grew to the study of modern science of phycology.

Aristotle and Heidegger have conflicting views on what a human or beings are. Although, there are some similarities to each of their set of ideas. Aristotle has a clear hierarchical framework classifying the differences between humans, animals, and plants. Heidegger opposes this strict definitions by discussing this idea of “Dasein” which states of being there. Although, their approaches to this topic are different with the types of question one asks and how they theorize about what is a being. There is key similarities that they discuss almost two thousand years apart. Aristotle and Heidegger are two philosophers that have tackled the enormous question, what is it to be a being? This paper discusses the two different approaches to defining this long standing question.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

As Aristotle saw his general surroundings, he watched that things are moving and changing in certain ways. Aristotle found that specific things cause different things, which thusly bring about something else. Aristotle trusted that a boundless chain of causation was unrealistic, subsequently, a prime mover or some likeness thereof should exist as the main source of everything that progressions or moves.