Introduction to Greek and Medieval Philosophy Schools

Part 1. On Plato and the Classical World

 So, we all know that “Philos Sophia” means the
“Love of Wisdom”

 We all know “Love”. Ardent desire for something.

 But what IS wisdom?

 Simply put, it’s the Knowledge itself. Any set of useful
information, from Science, Humanities, Video Games,
Movies, or even daily nuisance.

 But if Wisdom encompasses all there’s to be
known, it encompasses all there is to think of.

 Hence, THINKING itself is Wisdom

 And thus, Philosophy is the Desire to THINK.. To
KNOW… To UNDERSTAND…

( Still, some
“Knowledge” is
more important
Ideas
than others )

Events

Individuals Actions

 So why are we all here?

 It’s the thinking process that captivates us.

 We all think, but we don’t discourse.

 And after ages of contemplation, we reach a defining
moment, where the connections become clear.

 This moment is the pure idea that we’ve just grasped,
and think that ONLY ME has got “it”.

We all have great Ideas and
Eureka moments.

We love those moments. We
like to wave at them as they
pass by.

In fact, some
thinker might have
answered your • And
lifelong
contemplation
wrote it
millennia ago, in a book.

Other
thinkers
• Studied its pros gave it a
and cons, replied fancy name,
to criticism and And entire
created new
censure. works of
• But you still science have
think that “I’m propagated it.
the only one
smart enough”

Then, if it’s so good, why is
“thinking” and discourse on
ideas so scarce in current
world, particularly the
Middle East?

We need a certain level of
Intellectual Prosperity to examine
the World.

But we’ve been lacking it for far too
long.

We CAN’T wait any longer…

 Philosophy can be taught as;
 Historical. Through successive schools and major figures,
each studied individually.

 Categorical. Through topics and themes. Epistemology,
Ontology, and Metaphysics. Followed by Mind, Ethics, Telos,
Polis, and Subject Philosophy (Science, Biology, Spacetime)

 Contextual. Discussing the historical schools, with paying
attention to growing influence as History unfolds, creating a
fictional linking thread.

.....
DOXA
Apparent Reality

Pierre Bourdieu, in his Outline of a
Theory of Practice, used the term
DOXA to denote what is taken for
granted in any particular society.

The doxa, in his view, is the experience
by which “the natural and social world
appears as self-evident”.

Process philosophy identifies DOXA
with change.

The change spans the experiencable
realm of the Doxa. It always has a
BEGINNING (Entry to perception =
Birth), and an END (Exit of perception
= Death)

Becoming Becoming

.....
Doxa

Observers have posited true reality
as "TIMELESS", based on
permanent substances.

On the other hand, processes of
CHANGE are inferior to these
timeless substances.

If someone changes, as in becoming sick,
or even dies, he is still the same
substance – Weight wise (the
composition being the same)…

Yet the change (his sickness) only glides
over his substance: change is accidental,
whereas the substance is essential.

Becoming Becoming

Being
Doxa

 Homer (700 BC) wrote about Trojan wars in the
Iliad and Odeissy.

 Hoesid wrote the “THEOGONY”. It talks about
Greek Gods, How they came into existence, and
how they created everything else.

 Hoseid admits that his poems are inspired by the Muses.

 According to the Theogony, In the Beginning there
was ONLY Chaos (Nothing). From this, came Gaia
(Earth), Tarturus (Other/outer World), and Eros
(Desire).

 Hence, Chaos is the Origin of all Beings (Timeless
Substances) themselves.

 So, Hoseid was thus able to explain all the different
“Being – Becoming” processes across all different
realms of Doxa. Material, Psychological, and
Metaphysical, via a SINGLE ORIGIN.

Becoming Becoming

All Beings
Doxa

 This story makes little sense. Something came out of
Nothing. The notion of “Nothing” itself is
meaningless.

 Moreover, How can a single entity (Nothing) gives rise
to Everything? What was the mechanism? The cause?
The proof?

 However, Hesoid argues that he was GIVEN THE
COSMOGONY by muses, thus he can’t elaborate why.

Hence, his irrationality aims
to give human beings the
impulse that HUMANS
CAN’T EXPLAIN THE
WORLD in which they live
in.

 When compared to other cultures at that time, the
Mythos of Greece, the Greek Gods, were more of a
theatrical assembly, which didn’t actually show a
direct interest in the matters of individuals.
Deism.

 But the Jew had God observing them closely at
every single moment of their living life,
monitoring everything people were doing and
thinking.

Thus, the Greek were given the
freedom to think freely.
Thinking in Cosmogony was not
Heresy, as Gods didn’t explain
all the inner workings to their
disciples, but let them think.

But Jews had the texts that
already contained all the
answers needed, and there was
no need to discover or even look
for any kind of new things or
explanations.

Arche
Doxa

Mythos Logos

Thales
(BCE 624 to BCE
546)

 He was the first thinker to give a “Logos” to Doxa.

 For Hoseid, The Arche is Chaos/Nothingness.

 For Thales, material origin gives you tremendous
power. You have the ability to discern reality itself.

 His Arche was the most abundant of all things.
Water.

 Comparison between Hesiod and Thales. Can we
understand the World with our own intellect? Or is the
world somehow separated and distant, and we need a
Muse that describes the World to us?

 Hence, the battle of Philosophy (Logos) vs. Poetry
(Mythos)...

 He is thus Empirical. His information came from what
he’s sensing and seeing.

 Terms introduced by Thales, and used by
the Presocratics,
 ARCHE can unify all the different “many” into a single “one”.
Thales develops the very first mental (0,0,0) point in the 3D
realm of thinking. He opted for water.

 BECOMING is the process of coming into being present, and
then going out of being present. Hence, birth, life and death.

 BEING is the thing that remains and endures. Things
become, then exit. Hence, a thing goes into transformations
to “become”, but the Being is its the ultimate reality.

Arche Doxa

Mythos Logos

Empiricism

Water Doxa

Mythos Logos

Empiricism

 Anaximander (550)(Shapeless entity)

 The Arche is not a limited substance of Water. Rather,
the indefinite, or “apeiron”.

 Since we all have external limits shaping our forms, then
the Arche must be limitless. Ethereal.

 THUS, he is sort of a “Rationalist”. He adds thinking to
the observation.

Arche Doxa

Mythos Logos

Empiricism Rationalism

Apeiron Doxa

Mythos Logos


 Anaximenes (540)(air)

 Water can’t permeate. Yet, the notion of the indefinite is
unacceptable, as it also removes the “impulse” of
understanding the universe.

 That is, we can’t think the “Unlimited”, as we’ll always
limit it when we think about it.

 Thus, to reconcile, Air is more ubiquotus than water,
and it’s also the “unlimited”.

AirDoxa

Mythos Logos


 Pythagoreanism (Numbers)

 A cult. Highly secretive.

 Numbers recur from the One. A fixed value that recurs
over and over.

Numbers Doxa

Mythos Logos


 Xenophanes (God)

 A critic of Greek Polytheism. He’s a “God is ONE”
thinker.

All of God sees, all of him thinks, and all of him
hears. But without effort, he shakes all things by
the thought of his mind. He always remains in the
same place, MOVING NOT AT ALL.

 Thus, Arche is God. Now, emerges the definition of the
“Other”. This God has qualities, not organs.

The One Doxa

Mythos Logos


But now, the new complex crisis emerges in the
process of entering, and exiting, the world of
becoming.

How can the Being materializes in and out of
experience?

One of them MUST be true, and other
MUST be an illusion.

 He eliminated the concept of “Being”. It’s all
“Becoming”.

You can’t step in the same river twice. We
step, and DO NOT step in the same river.

 BUT, if nothing is stable, there would be no Logos.

Well. The Logos holds ALWAYS, but humans
are always unable to understand it.

Becoming Becoming Becoming

Doxa

On Logos, the road up and the
road down are one and the
same. The same thing is both
living and dead. Sea is the
purest but most polluted water.
Ultimately, Changing, it resets.

 So, he is contradicting himself. Saying P and ~P are
BOTH true. Contradiction is against reason itself.

 However, Heraclitus argues that if everything is in flux,
then we can think that we experience (P), but the actual
nature is (~P). Remember the river example.

 Hence, by deleting the absolute Being, and having all
things transform within the realm of becoming, he
created a method by which the question was answered.

The Cosmos was always and is
and shall be an ever-living FIRE.
WAR is the father of all and the
King of all.
The KINGDOM belongs to a
child playing.

 If nothing is permanent, then nothing is absolute.
Hence, Contradiction is typical, with abolition of
Being.

 Fire for him is undulant. Same goes for War. The
things that are at odds. The child imagination
creates rules and abolish them. Unpredictable rule-
less Kingdoms.

 The play of these fragments, the contradiction, the P
and ~P, the + and – odds present simultaneously
represent the idea of fluxing Becoming.

 This has affected Nietzsche thought. Nietzsche wanted
people to embrace the undulant + and – Nature of Life.
Denial of Change, or rationalizing it via God, Destiny,
Morals,.. is repulsive.

 Heraclitus took a step further. Is flux also in flux? That is,
are the things in flux fixed in their definition? Is their
Lexicon absolute? DEFINITELY NO. Nouns add stability,
and thus profoundly misleading.

 Hence, language is deeply misleading. That’s why the
writings are very contradicting and enigmatic. Hence,
contradicting words put the language in motion, fluxing
the meaning of the sentences over the aeons of time.

Becoming Doxa

Mythos Logos


 Parmenides argues the three “ways of Inquiry,” three
basic intellectual ways to see things…

 The first is that Being IS, or rather, the origins are the same.

 The second way affirms the reality of non-Being. This,
Parmenides argues, is a logical contradiction. (The idea of
NOT encompassing the root of everything, in everything, is
ridiculous, since we do have things.)

 The third way asserts that both non-Being and Being are.
This way is identified with what Parmenides calls DOXA,
“appearance” or “the way things seem to be.” He probably
associated it with the work of Heraclitus. It, too, is false.

Being can be, Non Being
can’t be, ergo Being and
Non Being can’t be. Thinking
and Being are the same.
 Non Being is NOT possible. Also Becoming is Not
possible. ARCHE IS BEING.

Becoming Becoming

All Beings
Doxa is a LIE

All is ALWAYS in the
State of Being

 DOXA is the way things appear to be. The thing we are familiar with.

 The essence of doxa is the belief in multiplicity and change. When we
open our eyes, we see lots of things and they are moving around.

 This is the realm of Becoming. We believe things come into being, then
pass away. Parmenides challenges this belief.

DO Not let habit born from much experience
compel you…to direct your sightless eye…
But judge by reason (logos)

 Parmenides’ Being is eternal, one, and indivisible — it is the
notion of a pure rationalist.

 Parmenides is a RATIONALIST; a strict, logical thinker who
ignores empirical observation (Doxa).

 By contrast, Thales was an EMPIRICIST. He reached his
philosophical conclusions by means of observation of the external
world.

 Heraclitus, too, is an empirical thinker. His thinking is an attempt
to be faithful to the flux of experience and the passage of time.

 Much of the subsequent history of philosophy can be divided into
empiricists (such as Locke and Hume) and rationalists (such as
Descartes and Leibniz).

Being
Doxa

Mythos Logos


 Both Heraclitus and Parmenides were extremists.

The goal was to preserve the insights of
Parmenides about Being without ending up in his
utterly paradoxical denial of Becoming,

And to affirm Heraclitus’s keen appreciation of
Becoming without lapsing into his irrational form
of logos.

 Empedocles (four elements). His theory has two basic
components;

 There are four kinds of “roots,” or elements: FIRE, AIR,
WATER, and EARTH. These combine and separate to form
sensible objects.

 Two basic forces in the universe govern the motion of the
roots: love and strife.

 When love is active, the roots combine. When strife is active,
the roots repel each other and disperse. The combining is
based on Chance. Similar to Darwin’s.

Four Elements
Doxa

Mythos Logos


 Leucippus and Democritus (indivisible
component) can merge the Heraclitus and
Parmenedis thinking in a better vision.

 ATOMS are indivisible and eternal. (Being). Atoms
combine to form larger, visible objects. Such objects pass
away when the atoms no longer cohere and disperse.

 But the atoms themselves do not pass away. They simply
move on (Becoming)

Atoms Doxa

Mythos Logos


 The Sophists, notably Protagoras and Gorgias, were itinerant
professors, living around Socrates’ age.

 Athens was a vibrant democracy in the fifth century.
 It was politically powerful ,very wealthy, and celebrated and
protected the right for free speech.
 In its primary legislative body, the Assembly, citizens could
debate anything. Many would defend their land and Produce.

 In such an environment, Sophists were hot commodities. By
teaching rhetoric, they offered the most useful skill for
advancing a political agenda or guarding one’s possessions.

 No single argument is absolutely
decisive. Both sides of every issue can
be argued equally.

There are TWO OPPOSING
ARGUMENTS (logoi) of Everthing.
Protagoras was able to make the
weaker argument the stronger.

 Protagoras of Abdera, who probably lived
from 485–415, challenged the Presocratics
with his most famous single statement:

Human being is the MEASURE of all
things—of things that are, that they
are, and of things that are not, that
they are not”

 Protagoras was a HUMANIST. He thought kosmos
or the archê were unknowable. For Protagoras,
human beings were the center, the “Measure,” of
all reality.

 Protagoras was a RELATIVIST. Compare the
absolutist who believes that something can be true
or good in and of itself.

 Protagoras taught RHETORIC, the art of speaking
well.

 Rhetoric and relativism go hand in hand. Since
Relativism is the denial that there are any absolute
truths or values.

 Hence, If nothing is absolutely true or good, then the
truths and values that guide human life get their
authority from human agreement or convention.

Arche Doxa

Mythos Logos

Sophistry Empiricism Rationalism

Humanism
Doxa

Relativism Logos


 This was Athens. The city which held beauty as the
most important aspect.

 The triad of Wealth, Beauty, and Intelligence was
co-dependant. One can’t have only one of them, or
else won’t be taken seriously.

 Socrates thus was more of a social reformist.
Challenging the norms of the Society by asking
fundamental questions on its values.

 The 410s BCE was a time of reversal of power from
the 30 Tyrants to Athenian Democracy.

 Because he asked so many questions, Socrates was
perceived as being a subversive. He was critical of
Athens and of democracy itself. By 399, the
Athenians may just have been sick and tired of
Socrates’ endless questioning.

 He was sentenced to death by Hemlock.

 Why didn’t Socrates write anything?

 He alleges that writing, far from enhancing our memory,
only weakens it.

 When we write something, Socrates says, the written
work is outside of us. The work circulates in the world,
fixed and indiscriminate, always subject to
misinterpretation by different people.

 As a result, Socrates preferred conversation to writing.

 He was fundamentally concerned with the question of what
is the best life for a human being.

 He asked “what is it?” questions. For example, “What is
justice?” and “What is courage?” He was, in other words,
seeking definitions that could be understood in universal, not
relativist, terms.

 Socrates himself offered no answers to his own questions.
Instead, he showed other people that, even though they
thought they did, they did not know what a good life really
was. This side of Socrates is best depicted in Plato’s The
Apology of Socrates.

 He was born to a very wealthy and powerful family.

 He was always given freedom to think, educate, and question
others.

 Hw didn’t fear Presocratics, like Heraclitus and Parmenides, or
Sophists, like Gorgias abd Protagoras. He condemned them
publicly.

 Takes great pride in his humble weak teacher, Socrates, as well as
his powerful influential family.

 He had ample time to reflect, while at his household. The
embodiment of the Rational.

 Why did Plato wrote Dialogues?

 By not expressing his own views in his own voice, Plato
wanted the reader to question everything he said. Perhaps he
wanted the reader to criticize Socrates himself.

 One can never really know what Plato believes; the reader is
always on edge.

 This approach reflects Plato’s debt to Socrates, because it
forces the notion of exchange or dialogue on the reader.

 Thrasymachus argues about nature of
Justice. In a monarchy, the king rules.

 The thing advantageous to the king is what,
according to Thrasymachus, would be counted as
just.

 In a democracy, the people rule. (Demos means
people.) What is advantageous to the people is just.
Of course, the people often change their minds about
what this might be.

Plato starts by asking, Do you think it is just to obey all laws?

Thrasymachus answers yes. According to him, laws are made
by, and for the advantage of, the ruling body. Therefore, he says
that it is just to obey all laws.

Plato then resumes, When the ruling body or ruler is creating
its laws, does it sometimes make mistakes?
Yes

When the ruler makes a mistake, it creates a law that is actually
to his disadvantage.
Yes

Because it is just to obey all laws, sometimes it is just to obey
laws that are disadvantageous for the ruling body.

 In the dialogue Theaetetus, Socrates uses a self-
reference argument against the position of
Protagoras.

 If all truth is relative, if there is no absolute truth, then
no one is really wiser than anyone else. Protagoras
believes he is wise, as evidenced by the fact that he
charges his students a great deal of money to study with
him.

 But Protagoras is a relativist. Therefore, by his own
reckoning, he is no wiser than anyone else.

 Plato was similar to the Reconcilers, trying to
synthesize Being and Becoming.

 The Forms are like Parmenidean Being.
 Sensible reality is like Heraclitean Becoming

 Yet, Socrates’s fundamental objection was to that
of Heraclitus. To him, the fluxing Becoming is
similar to the Sophists’ Relativism.

Socrates uses a self-reference argument against
Heraclitus as well. If nothing is stable, then words
themselves have no stable meaning.

If words have no stable meaning, then there can
be no true statements.

But Heraclitus tries to make true statements, one
of which is, “nothing is stable.”

But if nothing is stable, then the very sentence
“nothing is stable” is not stable and, hence, has no
meaning.

 Heraclitus’s position, as well as Sophistic
relativism, self-destructs.

 Why Bad? Because according to the relativist, it is not
possible to make a mistake. There are no wrong
answers.

 All answers are equal, because all of them are relative
to the person or group giving the answer... THUS,
YOU DROP THE DESIRE TO KNOW.

In Meno, “Even if they are many and
various, all of [the virtues] have one and
the same form which makes them virtues”
(pg. 193).

 Because we have access to the Forms and because that access
cannot come from experience, we must have gotten our
knowledge of the Forms before we were born.

 Consider the contemporary understanding of DNA: our genes
contain “information” (which has “form” built into it). In
other words, at conception, a human being has the form that
it will eventually assume.

The Forms Doxa

Mythos Logos


 Human beings are like prisoners in a cave.

 They are shackled and forced to look at the cave’s back wall.

 On this wall, they see images. These are really shadows
projected by a fire behind the prisoners. The shadows are of
objects that are placed before the fire.

 The prisoners cannot turn their heads and, thus, cannot see
the fire, only the shadows.

 They think the shadows are real.

 Plato’s teaching about the Ideas has radical
political implications in his Utopia.

 The Basis of his criticism of democracy.

 Plato advocates censorship especially on Literature and
Poetry, which teach Muthos.

 The city of the Republic is authoritarian.

 Data Collection, organization and PowerPoint
presentation by Ahmed Elkhanany.

Part 2. On Aristotle and the Medieval World

 Life

 Son of the court PHYSICIAN of Macedonia.

 At 17, he entered Plato’s Academy, and remained for 20 years.

 In 343–342, Philip of Macedonia invited him to tutor Alexander.
Returned to Athens in 335, and founded a school, the Lyceum, as
a research centre, and a database for Manuscripts, maps,
zoological samples, botanical samples, and political
constitutions.

 In 323, when Alexander died, an anti-Macedonian backlash
developed in Athens. He left town, and died a year later.

 Logic, Ethics, Physics, Metaphysics, Biology,
Astronomy, Meteorology, Mathematics,
Psychology, Zoology, Rhetoric, Aesthetics, And
Politics.

 THEORIA literally means “looking at.”

 An attempt to see the whole world as it really is. He was
an empiricsist. He had a great belief in Doxa.

 Endoxa, the “reputable opinions” held by all.

 For Aristotle, human beings are at home in Nature
“Phusis”.

 The world is stable. It makes sense. It is a “cosmos,” a
closed and HIERARCHICALLY ORDERED whole.

 ALL THINGS HAVE THEIR PLACES in the world.

 Moreover, everything has a cause. A function.
EVERYTHING MUST HAVE A FUNCTION, or else it
has no purpose. If there is no purpose, why existing?

On the one hand, modern
science understands far
better than Aristotle how
things really work.

On the other hand, Aristotle
understands far better than
modern science what it is
like to be a human being on
earth, seeing the world
through the “NAKED
EYE.”

 Edmund Husserl wrote “The Crisis of European
Sciences”.

 Although modern science can explain how things work,
it cannot explain what things mean. How we experience
the World..

 PHENOMENOLOGY, explaining the “appearances,” the
human experience of a meaningful world, thus
emphasizing the study of conscious experience.

WHAT is in THIS
WORLD?

WHY is it AS IT IS, and
NOT SOMETHING ELSE?

 Presocratics : natural in a human being is flesh, bone,
and water, that is, the MATERIAL CONSTITUENTS.
They neglected the Forms.. For Democritus, a dog is
similar to Man, just a couple of molecules apart...

 Aristotle argues: Matter is associated with
POTENTIALITY (wood of the bed), and Form
associated with ACTUALITY, or becoming. (The shape
and method of being Bed).

Motion is the ACTUALIZATION
of potentiality.

Natural being has “within itself a
principle [archê] of motion and
rest.”

 Presocratics, such as Thales, believed that only Arche,
forming all the Beings, was the basic ingredient of
nature.

 On this account, what is natural about a human being is
flesh, bone, and water, that is, the material constituents.
A BED is nothing but Water in a certain “becoming
configuration”.

 For Democritus, a BED is composed of atoms in certain
number and shape.

 These thinkers were not entirely wrong. But they didn’t
explain this configuration.

 Aristotle argues, they presented an answer to the
question of what “MATTER” was used in crafting a
certain being.

 Plato, on the other hand, believed in ideal Forms, that
were in NO WHERE to be experienced by our limited
experience.

 However, these forms would be the perfect example to
the question of “how did the matter turn into beings?”

 Answer would simply be via following its specific form.

 Thus, a BED is an instance of the “Perfect Form of Bed”.

 Aristotle Forms.

 For Plato, Forms are (mainly) of values. A Platonic Form
is a UNIVERSAL in which individual instances (this
beautiful painting) participate.

 For Aristotle, a being has both form and matter in it.
This is Aristotle’s “HYLOMORPHISM”.

Presocratic Platonic
Matter Forms
(Hyelos) (Morpheus)

Aristotle
Hyelo-
Morphism

Matter Forms
(Hyelos) (Morpheus)

Matter Form
Aristotle
Potentiality Actuality
Hyelo-
Hyelos Morph
Material Q.
Morphism Formal Q.
Stasis Motion

BEING BECOMING

Matter Forms
(Hyelos) (Morpheus)

Matter Form
Aristotle
Potentiality Actuality
Hyelo-
Hyelos Morph
Material Q.
Morphism Formal Q.
Stasis Motion

The idea of Actuality, or more specifically
MOTION, allowed Aristotle to create his
long needed Hierarchy of Doxa.

Aristotle defines a natural being as that
which has “WITHIN ITSELF A
PRINCIPLE OF MOTION AND REST.”

 A table has its principle of motion outside of
itself. A human being made the table.

 A natural being, such as a species of fish,
would exist even if human beings didn’t.

 The primary instances of natural beings are
animals, plants, and the simple bodies, such
as earth, fire, air, and water.

 Since all Natural Beings have an inner
Motion, Aristotle gave it a name. Psyche, or
soul.

 Aristotle defines soul as “the form of a
natural body that is potentially alive”.

 For Aristotle, a HIERARCHY OF LIVING BEINGS
exists.

 Animals are, for example, higher than plants. A fully
developed oak tree, which has reached its telos, is
superior to an underdeveloped oak tree.

Non Natural
Natural Beings
Beings with Outer
with Inner Motion
Motion

Basic FOUR Complex Cosmos with a
Elements Beings FIFTH Element

Human Plants

Animal

WHY is it AS IT IS, and
HOW IT ALL TIES IN?

4. Final, or TELEOLOGICAL
(“Nature does nothing pointlessly”)

3. Formal = Forms
and
(Becoming) Actuality

2. Efficient = Existence
1. Material
(Natural vs. and
(Being) Potentiality
Non Natural)

 Aristotle has a view of an orderly cosmos,
a world in which all things have their
proper places.
 The earth is at the center of the world. Beyond
the earth and its atmosphere come the moon,
the sun, the planets, and the fixed stars.

 The basic ingredients of the world below the
moon (sublunar) are EARTH, AIR, FIRE, and
WATER.

 The heavenly bodies: a 5th uncorrupt element:
quintessence.

 Biological Beings are all sublunar.

 Since Movement is defined as the actualization of a
potentiality,

 Prime Unmoved Mover. Aristotle argues that if
there is movement in the world, there must be an
original source of that movement.

 Because the unmoved mover is the permanent
source of all movement, it is pure actuality.

 B. Aristotle’s God HAS NO MORAL VIRTUES. It is not
generous or loving or just.

 To be moral implies some sort of lack.

 To be courageous, one must fear something.

 To be self-controlled, one must have a bad desire.

 God lacks nothing. Hence, God cannot be moral.

 For Aristotle, all human actions have a purpose.

 For example, a person exercises to become
healthy.

 Health is the telos of exercising. Exercising is the
means to attain the end of health.

 So, if Psyche/soul generates life, and if all natural
beings are to have a Telos, it follows that to be have a
soul means to have a purpose.

 There must be some final purpose. If there weren’t, the
succession of means and ends, of doing X to attain Y,
would go on forever.

 If the succession did go on forever, human actions would be
futile, and LIFE WOULD BE MEANINGLESS.

 But human life, Aristotle argues, is not meaningless.

 Therefore, there must be an ultimate purpose to human
existence. This is the highest good. We do not desire to be
happy to attain some other good. We desire it for itself. It is
good in itself.

Saying that happiness is the
highest good is a platitude. But,
WHAT EXACTLY IS IT, and how
can it be achieved?

 For this, Aristotle asks, “What is the ‘PROPER FUNCTION’
[ergon] of a human being?”

 The virtue or excellence (aretê) of something depends on its
“function.”

 The function of a carpenter is to build houses. Knowing this, we can
determine whether a given carpenter is excellent or not.

 The function of the eyes is to see. Knowing this, we can determine
whether someone has excellent eyes or not.

 If the function of human being were known, then we could
determine whether a person is excellent or not.

 The proper function of a human being is RATIONAL
ACTIVITY.

 The human function cannot be the ability to nourish oneself
or to procreate. This we share with plants.

 It cannot be sense perception. This we share with other
animals.

 It must, therefore, be rational activity.

 Human excellence or virtue is actualization of our potential
to be rational. Thus, we can objectively determine whether an
individual is happy or not.

 For Plato, philosophy, the life of thought, is the only genuinely happy
life.

 Aristotle agrees that rational activity is what makes us human. But for
Aristotle, there is MORE THAN ONE WAY TO BE RATIONAL.

 There is technical rationality: a carpenter thinks about how to build a
house.

 There is ethical rationality: a person wonders how best to help a friend
in need.

 And Political rationality, financial rationality,..

 Because there is more than one kind of rationality, there is more than
one kind of happy life.

The Four Causes
Doxa

Mythos Logos


 For Plato, FORM is separate and universal. For Aristotle, it is “in”
particular beings.

 For Plato, the ONLY GOOD AND HAPPY LIFE is the
philosophical life spent studying the Forms. For Aristotle, there
is more than one way of being rational; therefore, there is more
than one way of being happy.

 For Plato, only a POLIS governed by philosophers would be a
good and happy one. Aristotle understands that this goal is
unrealistic. For him, a polis governed by decent men who put the
good of the community above their own self-interest is a good
one.

 Aristotle loved THE NATURAL WORLD; Plato did not.

Plotinus ( AD 204–
270)

 Born and raised in Greek Egypt. Died 270 AD, 10 years
before Constantine adoption of Christianity.

 Essence.

 The fundamental activity of us all is to “see” the Forms with
the mind’s eye.

 He examplify the process of reasoning a mathematical
formula, and the moment of EUREKA that ends this mental
agony.

 Hence, a mere human mind grasps the timeliness of the
Forms.

 NOUS. It means “Divine Intellect”. A mind present always
in the state of Eureka. The entity grasping the nature, and
absolute ideals, of the Platonic Forms.

 NOEIN is the activity of reaching Intellect. It represents
the mental struggle for the enlightening moment.

 As mere humans, we have our own limited Intellect. It can
barely stay in the realm of Nous. But we all experience
Noein as a parameter indicating our existence.

 Yet, the multiplicity of the Forms provided by Nous, as
well as the Duality of Noein (the reasoner) and Nous
(the reasoned entities) can’t suffice to be a Divine
Entity.

 Thus, just like the number “1” unifying different
mathematical formulae. The SUN in the allegory of
the cave. The "ONE must be above the Forms
themselves.

 The One is,

 SIMPLE. No parts or structures. A point rather than a
line. A “1”, rather than an equation. A Sun, rather than
the different lights reflected.

 SUPER-ESSENTIAL. Above the forms. Hence, it’s above
existence itself, as Existence is a universal Form too.

 INCOMPREHENSIBLE. It’s above Noein, above
understanding.

 Plato’s influence (Ideal Forms)

 Aristotle’s ideology of the soul (Soul and Form is one
and the same) and the HIERARCHY OF COSMOS
(Body -> Soul -> Noein -> Nous -> The One).

 In this Hierarchy, the soul looks outwards to the Body. If
reflection and inward appreciation is maintained
properly, the soul will look to the Forms. To Nous itself.

Body. Material World.

Soul. Inner World.

Noein

Nous. Divine Mind.

The ONE

St. Augustine (354
to 430)

 He was one of the Church fathers, along with St.
Ambrosia, and St. Jerome.

 He combined Biblical teachings, with Plato’s Ideal and
Plotinus’ Spiritual Philosophies.

 Author of Confessions. One of the earliest
Autoboigraphies ever written.

 Lost among the “Outwards”

 He looks as going away from God as looking to the
material.. Looking to the outside. {YOU WERE
WITHIN, BUT I WAS WITHOUT}

 The external things are beautiful as God made them, but
they are NOT GOD. They are prisons for the wandering
soul.

 {The Earth is NOT my home}

 Turning unto the “inward”

 The self reflection reveals a whole inner world “The
Intelligible World”

 Unlike Plotinus, who identified the Eureka moment as
tapping in Noeu itself, St. Augustine SEPARATED THE
DIVINE FROM THE MUNDANE. He looks in, and “UP”.

 Hence, he effectively separated the soul from Nous, the Forms
of reality which for him represent the “Mind of God”

 The “Eudaimonia” here lies in identifying the Noein –
the struggle to look inwards to reach God.

 Our sins are the beauties of the Outerworld. They
bring our looks to it, and cause us to be blind to God’s
inward Glory.

 Hence, when we receive the Gift of Eternal Life, we will
be able to see Nous, the One, God with all his Glory for
eternal blessings. What was later called BEATIFIC
VISION.

Sins. The Outwards.

Soul. The Inwards.

Noein

The Divine Mind.

God

St. Thomas
Aquinas (1225 to
1274)

 The son of a Noble Italian house, from Kingdom of
Sicily. He was well connected the Aristocrats of Europe
then.

 Prior Aristotelians were Alexander of Aphrodisias (AD
200s), Ibn-Sina (AD 1000s), Ibn-Rushd (1100s), and
Albertus Magnus (1250s)

 St. Aquinas followed Aritotle Physics.

 What we know is strictly empirical.

 He embraced the Logos and Logical structures (SYLLOGISMS and
MODUS PONENS) of Aristotle.

 He developed his Cosmology too.

 The Geocentric model of the five planes of existence. Earth, Moon,
Planets, Sun, and God realms.

 Sublunars were all made of the four elements, as they were tained
by the Original Sin.

 The fifth element is still authentic, not tained entity.

 He embraced Aritotle Ethics

 Eudaimonia was teleological; to know one’s true
function in the Cosmos.

 God is the source of all happiness

 The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

 The Argument of the First Cause

 The Argument from Contingency (Cosmological)

 The Argument from Degree. (Ontological Perfection)

 The Teleological (Design) Argument

Introduction to Greek and Medieval Philosophy Schools

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Introduction to Greek and Medieval Philosophy Schools

Similaire à Introduction to Greek and Medieval Philosophy Schools (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Introduction to Greek and Medieval Philosophy Schools