ROLL NUMBER: 21-PPL-023 NAME: VIKAS KUMAR LAKRA SJ

MA DEGREE EXAMINATION – PHILOSOPHY

First Continuous Assessment -18th October 2021

PART A
Q1. Plato’s philosophy of human person
Ans:
Plato gave a beautiful philosophy on human person which is also known as the Plato’s philosophy of man.
Plato’s presentation of the body-soul union as something harmful and negative was going to have far-
reaching effects on human thought down the centuries. Through St. Augustine and early Christian
spirituality, the body would come to be looked upon as something despicable and loathsome - or, at least,
this would be how the common run of Christians would understand Augustine and early spiritual writers. All
of which is very bad psychology, to say the least. Even St. Ignatius of Loyola, for all his healthy humanism,
was speaking of the ‘immortal soul imprisoned in our perishable bodies’.
The rehabilitation of the body has not quite-been achieved, in spite of much development in contemporary
psychology and ascetical doctrine, so profound has been the wound that Plato has inflicted on it. Once again,
we would have to wait for an Aristotle to present the so-called body-soul union as something positive for
both ‘elements. Cartesian dichotomism is nothing but a drawing out of this Platonic antagonism to its
ultimate conclusions.
The after-life: It would not be out of place, here, to caution the student against identifying the Platonic
theory of the immortality of the soul with the Christian dogma of the Resurrection of the body.
In the Platonic view, the resurrection of the body is silly and ridiculous: why should the old prison-cell-body
be restored to the liberated soul? The Resurrection of the body only makes sense in an incarnational view,
where the body is not seen as something merely negative. As for the theory of transmigration, it is
essentially a response to the mystery of toil and injustice in the world, but - even if one may not be able to
positively prove it to be false - one can show it doesn’t provide a very satisfying response to the mystery at
all, in fact, it would add to the web of injustice.

Q4. Epicurean philosophy

Ans:
If the Stoics refused to allow pleasure to become a goal of human life, the Epicureans saw it as the goal of
ethical conduct. Epicurus was a man in constant poverty and prey to ill-health. And he noted that “the whole
world lives in pain”. It is normal, then, that he should direct the thrust of his philosophical vision towards the
removal of unhappiness and pain. The first way to do this would be to do away with all unreasoned fear of
the gods. This is a chief source of unhappiness. A proper knowledge of the divinity would assure us that the
gods never cause trouble to others.
ROLL NUMBER: 21-PPL-023 NAME: VIKAS KUMAR LAKRA SJ
Next, one should do away with the fear of death. After all a thing can only harm or hurt us when we have
sensation. But when death comes, we have no sensations. Thirdly, we should limit our desires. We should
put the health of the body and the peace of our soul in the first place and then we shall see that we need
precious little to ensure this. Then we should make use of sufficient foresight and planning to see that our
actions and plans do not unnecessarily come to naught. We should honor our social obligations and live
justly. Thus, we will be able to keep out of trouble.
Finally, Epicurus laid great stress upon friendship as one of the most precious pleasures of human life. He
fostered this spirit among his disciples in the Garden. His school was open to women too, unlike, the
Academy or the Lyceum, for he did not aim at forming politicians. Thus, the Garden besides being a school,
also fostered a family spirit which went a long way towards aiding the individual who had been swallowed
up in the anonymous structures of cosmopolitanism.
Theoretically, their criterion is sensation. Sensation never is deceptive; the error lies in our judgment.
Several sensations amalgamated in a general picture result in a notion. The notion, however, as regards
objective value, is not superior to the sensations from which it arises. From notions arises opinion, or
thought which likewise depends on sensation for its truth. Hence Epicurean Logic limited itself to the
discovery of the criteria or canons of truth. So, it is called “canonic”. Epicurean’s list three major canons of
truth. In the first place, there are perceptions. Now there are two kinds of perceptions: representative and
imaginative. Error arises when we take the latter for the former.
However, we are not told much about how to distinguish one from the other. Then there are “previous
experiences”. They can serve as guide-lines for later opinions and beliefs, for these should always square
with the former. Finally, there are feelings. Pleasure or pain are to be the basis for our choosing to take or
reject something. Epicurean Physics is nothing but Democritus atomism, which is made even more
materialistic, if there is an attempt to make it less mechanistic. An attempt is made to explain the movement
of the atoms in the void by postulating a certain “klinamen” of oblique inclination of the atoms: this is
purported to explain their motion as well as the variety of beings in the universe. The starting point of this
argument is the observation that the motions of our bodies respond to our will, and that our will is
indeterminate, in that it is “our pleasure” or “our inclination” which brings about the motion. If the motion
of the atoms is determinate, there would be no accounting for the indeterminacy of the will. Epicurus
introduced this line of reasoning because he was afraid that if an atom always moved by its natural and
necessary heaviness, we would have no freedom, since our mind would be moved in such a way that it
would be compelled by the motion of atoms.
The atomic constitution of things is universal. Even man’s soul is made up of the usual atoms, plus a
mysterious subtle one which makes it possible for him to experience sensations.
According to the Stoics, it is the soul which holds the body together; according to the Epicureans, it is the
body which shelters the atoms of the soul, so that, when the protection afforded by the body ceases, as it
does at the moment of death, the soul atoms are instantly scattered, owing to their extreme lightness. In this
way Epicurus, keeping in mind the chief aim of all his physical inquiries, sought to rob death of its terrors by
teaching that there is no future life.
Religion, according to the Epicureans, was of natural growth. Fear is the basis of religion.
Ignorance, too, is a factor in the genesis of the religious instinct. It was owing to ignorance and fear that men
attributed natural portents to the intervention of supernatural powers and sought to explain the regularity of
the motion of the heavenly bodies by referring it to the agency of Providence. Nevertheless, Epicurus did not
wholly abandon belief in the gods. The gods, he said, exist because they have appeared to men and left on
ROLL NUMBER: 21-PPL-023 NAME: VIKAS KUMAR LAKRA SJ
the minds of men representative images (prolêpseis). They are immortal; they enjoy perfect happiness;
formed of the finest atoms, they dwell in the uppermost parts of the universe, in the spaces between the stars.
The popular notion, however, that the gods take an interest in human affairs is erroneous, because an interest
in the affairs of men would be inconsistent with the perfect happiness which the gods enjoy. Much of his
theological writings consist of attacks on superstitious religious practices. The gods have no control over the
earth and do not in any way determine the flow of events. Such an interest would be quite unworthy of them,
he asserted. He encouraged, all the same, a certain devotion to the gods, for he felt that celebrating their
festivals would help us to share in their peaceful lives - an aspect of the divine life that he greatly admired.

Part B

Q1. The five ways of Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of God
Ans:
The “Five Ways”:
Accordingly, St. Thomas proceeds to delineate “the five ways in which we can prove that there is God.”
Each of these “ways” starts out with some phenomenon taken from “the observable world” and then, by way
of some particular application of the principle of causality. For example, “anything in process of change is
being changed by something else, a series of causes must stop somewhere” establishes a necessary
connection between this fact and the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name God.
1. The first way is based on change in general.
2. Then, passing from the element of passivity observed in all inferior causes
he takes up a consideration of their activity and thereby comes to the first cause.
3. Thirdly, there is the fact of contingency, implicit in our observation of things that are forever “springing
up and dying away”.
4. Fourthly there is the proof the “gradation observed in things” whose Platonic roots are evident enough.
5. Finally there is the proof from finality, “based on the guidelines of nature claim for originality can be
made out on Aquinas’ behalf as regards these arguments.
Aristotle, Maimonides and Avicenna, to name but a few, had all made use of them before the angelic doctor.
The latter’s contribution was to assemble them together systematically, polish them up a bit and then present
them in a very clear and lucid way. So much so that anyone who would attempt to present proofs for God’s
existence, usually but quotes St. Thomas’ version of the ‘five ways” and adds his commentary.
It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is
moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved;
whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something
ROLL NUMBER: 21-PPL-023 NAME: VIKAS KUMAR LAKRA SJ
from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by
something in a state of actuality... it is therefore, impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a
thing should be both mover and moved that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be
moved by another.
If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by
another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and
consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the
first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone
understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things, we find there is an
order of efficient causes. There is no case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself;
for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in
order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only.
Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to
infinity, there will be no first efficient
cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly
false. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are
possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is
possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which cannot-be
at some time is not. Therefore, if everything cannot-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now
if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to
exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would
have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus, even now nothing would be in existence
- which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence
of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is
impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have
their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes.
Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity,
and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and
some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as
they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter
according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest,
something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that
are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus,
as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore, there must also be something
which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
ROLL NUMBER: 21-PPL-023 NAME: VIKAS KUMAR LAKRA SJ
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that thing which lack knowledge, such as
natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same
way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but
designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some
being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some
intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Q2. Describe the philosophy of the world- four causes of Aristotle

Ans:
Aristotle is also known as a great philosopher of the world because of his philosophical ideas that
contributed a lot in the world of science.
Some of his contribution to the world are:
1. Logic:
Logic is a stream of mathematics that was introduced by Aristotle to the world. Today logic is used
almost everywhere for example; mathematics, computer science, biology etc.
2. Systematization:
Aristotle did a lot of systematization in Logic. He was one of the first to notice that the mind has a
certain basic structure and method and he tried to detail what these were and how it functioned. The
ultimate elements of the working of the mind were three: concept, judgment and reasoning.
3. The theory of act and potency:
This apparently unprepossessing little theory is, in reality, of great consequence. It provides the
profoundest metaphysical basis to answer the difficulties raised by Parmenides against movement
and multiplicity. Parmenides and others would speak of being and non-being, allowing
of no other category and implying that a thing, to exist, must be being pure and simple else it had to
be non-being and so, obviously, couldn’t exist. In Book of his Metaphysics, Aristotle elaborated his
theory which offers a valuable insight and a key to many pseudo-problems in metaphysics.
4. The theory of act and potency:
The Metaphysics points out, also, an important distinction and has given us two important term that
we have adopted as part and parcel of our everyday speech, while hardly ever noticing their
ontological roots.

The Four Causes:

The study of causes involves yet another application of the theory of act and potency. This study is taken up
by Aristotle in the Physics, II. He points out that men only feel satisfied that they have acquired knowledge
about a thing when they can understand its “why”. He then points out that everything we observe has four
principles or causes which influence it. First there are two intrinsic causes, so called because they are
inadequately distinct from their effect. These are the material cause and the formal cause.
Then there are the two extrinsic causes - adequately distinct from their effect. These are the efficient cause
(the one who makes or initiates the effect, e.g., the carpenter with regard to the table) and the final cause (the
ROLL NUMBER: 21-PPL-023 NAME: VIKAS KUMAR LAKRA SJ
reason for which the effect is produced, e.g., the carpenter makes a table in order to get money). Aristotle
showed, for instance, how the material cause is in potency with regard to the formal cause, as in matter and
form.
Below are some examples for these:
(1) The material cause: For example; clay is the material that potter makes.
(2) The formal cause: the form. For example; The form that it has to take: the shape of a clay.
(3) The efficient cause: the primary source of the change or rest. The person who becomes the source: for
example, potter.
(4) The final cause: the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done. For example; to sell, to carry water
and get it sold.