P. 1
Study Guide: Ancient Greek Philosophy Essence of Spacio-Temporal Things (Berman)

Study Guide: Ancient Greek Philosophy Essence of Spacio-Temporal Things (Berman)

5.0

|Views: 235|Likes:
Published by Batool A
VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY HARD CLASS, ancient philosophy blows donkey balls
VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY HARD CLASS, ancient philosophy blows donkey balls

More info:

Published by: Batool A on Jun 06, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

Ancient Philosophy Lecture Notes 11-16-06 Explaining Essence of Spacio-Temporal Things: Aristotle -When you get out of the

categories, primary substance is just substance. Substance is just a “this” that you can point at. -The soul does not survive death – it’s the form that holds a house together. The soul is merely the organization of physical parts and once the soul is gone, there is no more unification. -The highest organizing principle gives you the nature of things. -Essence controls movement and change -What your essence is, is what is true of you for every possible way the world/events could have gone. -It’s always forms that’ll be directing us. -Forms masters and constrains the lower-levels – when it gets to strong for higher levels to control, the organism dies. -Does Socrates have his own form of human beingness? Aristotle would say NO because his form is eternal (e.g. the piglet would have the same form as father pig)

The Difference b/t Aristotle and Plato’s View (p. 261) -Aristotle supposed to have a moderate view, and Plato’s is radical/going too far. The explanation (based on e.g. in the case of Socrates and the color blue): -To say Socrates and the color blue both exist would be meaningless bc they have no genus above them in common bc Socrates is a substance and the color blue is a quality. They’re not comparable bc they are not of the same values. Aristotle is basically saying that both the color blue and Socrates are systematically ambiguous, they only exist in the secondary sense (nonsubstance). So it’s not that they’re nothing, but they’re not something either. -Plato says there’s either something or nothing.

-The notion of dependency – people tend to mistakenly think that if something doesn’t exist in the primary, then it can’t exist in the secondary. But something can exist eternally and could just exist in the secondary sense. Aristotle thinks they still exist, just in different senses. -The packet reading (in first passage) will talk about the views Aristotle does NOT have.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->