Aristotle and Aquinas

With so much comparison between the ancient Greeks and the Christian tradition going on in this class, I decided to share a few quick thoughts on Aristotle and Aquinas. It is clear that both hold virtue to be highly important and necessary to reach a higher ultimate end. Aquinas accepts this idea of habituation and teaching as methods of instilling virtue, but adds another major component to the mix. Not only are there acquired virtues that each person can develop on their own (Aristotle), but there are also infused virtues that are only obtained through God. God is the biggest difference between Aristotle and Aquinas, because having God as the center of one's life changes every other aspect of living a proper moral life.

This influences the comparison of the ultimate end for both philosophers. They do agree about happiness playing a central role in one's pursuit of actions. Happiness rooted in contemplation for Aristotle is tied to the divine, but also occurs in this life. Aquinas on the other hand, makes beatitude (intellectual vision of God) the ultimate end with happiness being a necessary consequence of this end. Additionally, Aquinas and Aristotle agree that reason is a major source from which knowledge, virtues, and proper morality flow forth. However, the influence of a belief in God is again the difference maker with Aquinas also arguing that faith is an equal player in achieving knowledge, virtue, and proper morality.

These are only a couple quick thoughts that immediately come to mind when talking about these two and there is so much more to talk about. Much of what Aristotle lacks comes as a consequence of the time period that he lived in. Had he lived after the coming of Christ and had that knowledge by revelation, I think we would have seen an even more agreeable picture painted with his works.

-BaylorBear16

Traits of Contemplation

Aristotle argues that a life of contemplation is a virtuous activity that contains the final end of happiness. Contemplation is not only the highest activity, but it is the most continuous, because one can study and enjoy what they know more easily than any other activity. This activity uses the highest self which is the intellect, and activities that conform to virtues along with theoretical wisdom are the most pleasant. For the virtuous man will find what is most pleasant to him to be in conformity with virtue. 

Contemplation is also self-sufficient in that one can study by himself and is not dependent on any external goods. Although one can greatly benefit from having others around him to contemplate with, this activity is possible to do alone and does not absolutely need others. Even though sufficient nourishment of the body is required to contemplate, this can be said for all virtuous activity and thus ignored.

Contemplation is also performed for its own sake and not as a means to something else. Here Aristotle is talking about contemplation in terms of enjoying what one already knows and not in terms of studying at school as a means to get a job or a degree. Finally, contemplation is done as leisure and contains the highest amount of freedom from fatigue. One works so that he may have time for leisure. For all of these reasons, Aristotle believes that contemplation is the virtuous activity that holds the final end which is happiness.

-BaylorBear16

1000 Word Draft

An Aristotelian Guide to Moral Virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics

            Throughout books 1-4 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes a system of activity by which all men can acquire moral virtue in this life. Attaining moral virtue is important, because Aristotle believes it helps the individual attain happiness which is the end that which all good men aim at. Much of what we do as individuals stems from a pursuit of happiness. Since virtue is tied to happiness, understanding how to acquire moral virtue will make it easier for the individual to achieve a happy life. Even if we do not agree with everything Aristotle has to offer, at the very least, he can help us better understand virtue which benefits not only ourselves, but other people around us. I will argue that Aristotle believes moral virtue is achieved through habitual activity of the appetitive part of the soul as influenced by reason in pursuit of a mean between excess and deficiency. First, I will explain the different parts of the human soul which will allow for a better understanding of the two major types of virtue Aristotle addresses. Next, I will discuss Aristotle’s system of the mean as well as the necessary conditions required for virtuous activity. Finally, I will present several examples of Aristotle’s virtues as understood through pursuing a mean. By replicating this same activity in our own lives, we can obtain moral virtue for ourselves and take the next step towards happiness as part of the good.

            In order to understand moral virtue, one first needs to know the different parts of the human soul. This is because virtue is the excellence of one’s soul and happiness is an activity of the soul, not the body (NE 1102a.15). Aristotle divides the soul into two parts the irrational and rational parts of the soul. The irrational part lacks reason, but in some instances can interact with it. The rational part of the soul is where one finds the use and source of reason to be the primary function. These two sides of the soul are then further categorized into smaller parts. The irrational part is subdivided into a vegetative and appetitive part of the soul. This vegetative or nutritive part is common among all living things including plants, animals, and humans. It is responsible for the growth or nurturing aspect of the individual, thus any organism that is partaking in nourishment must contain a vegetative part of the soul (NE 1102b). Interestingly this description means that a vegetative part of the soul does not just apply to growing plants or born humans, but to seedlings and embryos. Thus, even an unborn child going through embryonic development would have at the very least a vegetative soul. However, this nutritive part is not associated with virtue or human excellence because it is common to all organisms and generally involuntary (NE 1102b.10). Activity of this part is seen in involuntary things such as digestion, growing taller, or having to sleep. Everything is oriented towards the goal of maintaining the individual’s life at the most basic level.

            The appetitive or perceptual part of the soul is the second part of the irrational side, but does contain a certain interaction with reason. Aristotle explains that the appetitive part in good men can follow the leadership of reason, but in bad men opposes and rebels against reason (NE 1102b.20). This rebellion is why the appetitive part of the soul falls under the irrational side despite its positive interactions with reason as well. This part deals with the appetites or desires of individuals for example sex or food. It also deals with perceptual sensations such as touch or smell and, in this way, can be found in higher animals as well (Shields). Additionally, different emotions such as pleasure and anger stem from this part of the soul. This appetitive part is where the struggle for moral virtue can be found.

            The rational side gives rise to the intellectual part of the soul. This is what makes humans unique to all other living things. The intellect is not found within animals or plants and produces reason which governs the mind. For Aristotle, this intellectual capacity is essential to all humans and is what makes humans human (Shields). This intellectual capacity attempts to control our desires and emotions keeping them aligned towards the good. The activity of this part of the soul consists in understanding and contemplation. Aristotle makes another distinction separating the intellectual capacity into the theoretical intellect and the practical intellect (Shields). The theoretical intellect deals with scientific knowledge and understanding things in themselves. It deals with those things which are the highest by nature (NE 1141b). The practical intellect focuses on what is good for man and the ability to discern the things in life which are aimed at man’s proper end (NE 1142b). It can help man recognize what action to take that is good for the individual in each case with regards to the right end. It is no surprise then that intellectual virtues stem from this part of the soul.

            With the different parts of the soul distinguished, we can gain a sense of what things the two major types of virtue that I have already mentioned address. Moral virtue focuses on how to control man’s appetites, emotions, and desires with reason. Some examples of moral virtues include courage, justice, temperance, and generosity. All of these moral virtues are connected in some way to things that humans want or feel. Intellectual virtue deals with different types of knowledge and deliberating the good. Some examples include techne, scientific knowledge, practical wisdom, and theoretical wisdom. Both types of virtue deal with a separate part of the soul, but both require the use of reason to acquire and develop them. This is why only humans can attain such virtues, because they have a rational capacity.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Martin Ostwald. 1st ed. New York: Macmillan, 1962. Print.

Shields, Christopher. "Aristotle's Psychology." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford University, Spring 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/aristotle-psychology/>.

Unequal Friendship

Aristotle seems to give a somewhat unsure response to the possibility of friendships that are between unequal individuals. When talking about those that are highly virtuous being friends with those that are not really virtuous at all, he uses the example of a king to a peasant (1159a). This relationship is highly unlikely and would not be something that anybody would expect. However, Aristotle also says that the point at which inequality rules out friendship is unclear. Only in terms of divinity and man does he think it clear that friendship seems impossible due to their separation.

Later in chapter 14 of book VIII, Aristotle gives an explanation of what both sides of the unequal friendship are to give each other if it is of the virtuous nature. It is obvious that the person of lower standing benefits from becoming friends with a highly virtuous person because they can learn how to be more virtuous and can be educated on the subject. This would only be a utility friendship, so what does the greater person benefit from the lower? The lower person is to give the more virtuous person honor for their excellence and teachings. Aristotle believes honor to be a proportionate benefit to what the higher individual gives the lesser. By maintaining this proportionality, equality within the friendship is restored. Thus, it seems that unequal individuals can become friends. Does the limitation of friendship between divinity and man oppose Christian thought?

-BaylorBear16

Wishing Well for a Friend

At the end of chapter 7 book VIII, Aristotle talks about wishing the good of a friend within complete friendship. It is obvious that we should wish for the other's well-being for the sake of the other. However, what about wishing the greatest good for the other regardless of the self? Aristotle believes that we should not wish the greatest good for another (becoming a god) because then that would remove the person from our friendship. We would no longer have them as a friend and would not be able to virtuously benefit each other. Thus, we should not wish for all of the greatest goods upon another, because we wish for our own good most of all. Aristotle suggests that complete friendship is wishing the greatest good of becoming a god upon another only if you are also to receive the same good.

I disagree with this particular aspect of Aristotle's friendship, because it seems to go against the Christian notion of charity for our fellow human brothers and sisters. In the Christian tradition, wishing that another person go to heaven is similar to Aristotle's good of becoming a god. However, we are called to wish for another's reaching of heaven regardless of our own particular circumstance through charity. By loving our neighbor as we would want to be loved, we should want everyone to reach heaven independent of the self. This is drastically different from Aristotle's perspective which is more self-oriented in the sense of gaining goods for yourself first. The only other explanation for this text is that Aristotle is talking more about human nature within friendship instead of this being complete friendship, but I do not see it as such.

-BaylorBear16

Hierarchy of Friendship

Aristotle poses three different kinds of friendship in Book VIII: utility, pleasure, and perfect friendship. Friendship based on utility is seen among individuals who would gain some worldly usefulness from befriending each other. Pleasure friendships are similar to those of utility because the individuals are useful to each other, but in the form of pleasure or pleasantness. Perfect or complete friendship is between two good virtuous men and is the highest form of friendship. This is achieved when both wish for the well-being of the other for the other's sake. There is an active participation in furthering that individual's flourishing. In participating in a perfect friendship there is also the existence of utility and pleasure friendships within it, but these are not the primary source of the friendship.

This leads to the question of whether complete perfect friendship rises out of utility or pleasure friendships? It is evident that the majority of friendships that an individual has are based on utility and pleasure as Aristotle says that perfect friendship is rare. Due to the time and effort required to attain perfect friendship, it seems that one could only have a few of these friendships. It makes sense that friendships could start as utility and pleasure, but over time turn into complete friendship after getting to know the other. However, I do not think that this hierarchy is to be followed so strictly. It also seems that the closer two individuals get to being virtuous, the friendships they form at that moment are going to be virtuous from the start or else they would not be virtuous people. Thus perfect friendships might start as utility or pleasure, but they can also come about on their own.

-BaylorBear16

Necessary Conditions for Virtue

Although Aristotle explains how to attain the mean and what it consists in, he also gives other conditions that must be met for some action to be considered virtuous. Moral virtue is concerned with both passivity and activity. The passive aspect deals with the emotion and the activity deals with an action of virtue. Both are connected together to establish moral virtue. The action must be done to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, for the right reason, and in the right way (1109a.25). These five conditions make it much harder to perform virtuous activity and force the agent to really intend such an act for it to be valid. In some ways this makes sense, because Aristotle believes habituation can develop moral virtue, but that only seems possible if the person is consciously engaged toward this virtue. These five conditions solidify that mentality and contribute to the formation of a disposition or state of mind, rather than something we do every once in a while.

One issue with this is that Aristotle does not make clear who determines the rightness of these different conditions. Must these conditions be objectively right to any person, or must these conditions be right with respect to the individual. One example is generosity where the individual is to give just the right amount of money without being too stingy or too extravagant. Say the individual meets all the conditions except giving it to the right person. They give it to someone posing to be poor rather than an actual poor person. The individual thinks they gave it to the right person and would meet all of the conditions. Such an act would seem to shape the individual toward the mean of generosity. However, objectively they did not give it to the right person which would not be virtuous. Depending on the perspective, the conditions were either met or not. I think many would say that such an act would move the individual toward the mean since they did not know the person was posing as poor even if it may not have been completely virtuous. I have trouble deciding myself, but regardless of the stance, this example shows that the lines of virtuous activity can easily become blurred. What would Aristotle think of this example?

-BaylorBear16

Moral Virtue as the Mean

Aristotle argues that moral virtue lies at the median between excess and deficiency relative to the individual. With each virtue comes two vices with one being a lack of the virtue and the other too much of the virtue (1108b.15). The two vices are opposites of each other and also opposed to the virtue itself. All three form a spectrum on which each individual falls at their own place. The position where one falls on the spectrum determines which direction the person should aim to attain virtue. If one falls closer to recklessness then they should aim toward cowardice. If one lies closer to cowardice then they should aim at recklessness. It is interesting that Aristotle believes one should aim at the excess or deficiency opposite of where we lie in order to attain virtue. 

One would think that in order to achieve courage as a virtue, one should aim at courage. But Aristotle says we need to aim past the virtue we want to acquire. By doing this, we will move along the spectrum and hit the median. If you aim at the virtue itself, then you will only move closer to the median, but never reach the end goal until a much longer time. By aiming past the median you can reach it faster then aim at the other opposite end so that you do not go too far past the median. This is because we often think of things relative to our own disposition. A cowardly man will view a courageous man as reckless and vice versa. Thus, we ought to aim at what appears to us to be the extreme, when in fact it might be the virtue itself. At some point, however, I feel that you must aim at the virtue when you think you are close. This leaves the question of how do you know when you are close to the median?

-BaylorBear16

Intellectual and Moral Virtue

Aristotle divides the soul into multiple parts such as the vegetative, appetitive, and rational parts. The vegetative part has to do with things out of our control and yet are necessary. This includes nutrition and growth, which can be seen in all living things from plants to humans. The appetitive part of the soul has to do with our desires and emotions. However, it also takes part in reason and is the source of moral virtue. The rational part of the soul is the intellect, where reason gives rise to intellectual virtues. This rational part of the soul is what separates humans from animals. Aristotle believes the intellectual virtues and moral virtues are completely separate groups of virtue. Thus, he argues that they come about through different methods. The intellectual virtues are transmitted or taught from one to another. The moral virtues are developed through habituation and practice.

 I understand the distinction that Aristotle is making, however, I feel that teaching and habituation are not so isolated to a specific group of virtues. Although they may apply more to one set of virtue than another, it seems that both teaching and practice play a role in both sets. As children we often look to our parents as examples of moral virtue and in a way they teach us moral virtues, which we must go practice on our own. With intellectual virtues such as practical wisdom, there is some requirement for an experienced teacher to show us what we cannot know by ourselves. Yet there seems to be some element of habituation or practice involved in practical wisdom as well. Through many experiences of having to discern right decisions to make, we can better improve our practical wisdom. This is a form of practice and not just learning from a teacher. Therefore, intellectual virtue and moral virtue may be brought about more clearly through either habituation or teaching, but it appears that some mixture of the two is necessary as well. What do you think about the distinction that Aristotle argues for?

-BaylorBear16

Nicomachean Ethics Book 1

Aristotle understands that man seeks to be happy in this life and believes that the way to happiness is by achieving the highest good. This highest good is an activity of the soul in line with virtue or excellence by use of the rational part of the soul (1098a.10-15). What separates this highest good from other external goods and bodily goods is that this good is self sufficient and fully satisfying. With worldly goods, we are never satisfied and consistently look to more. With bodily goods they are not self sufficient and require a healthy properly functioning body to accomplish them. Thus, I agree with Aristotle that the highest good must take part in the soul which is above this worldly life. This activity of the soul is in some ways a perfecting of the soul as the activities are virtuous in pursuit of excellence. This idea of the highest good and perfection of one's self can be seen in the Christian tradition through beatitude.

Additionally, there is an element of balance or temperance within the happy man's life and actions. The happy man is not fickle or changeable as he does not become miserable at each downturn of fortune, nor does he easily become overwhelmed with joy at every positive thing (1101a.5-15). Lady fortune has no grip over the happy man, because he realizes that happiness is achievable by his own activity and does not put all of his trust in chance. This type of behavior refers to the use of reason over the sensible appetites of the soul, which are part of the temporary goods of this life. Aristotle seems correct about the important role reason plays, but does not make the error of placing all happiness on reason alone. Instead, Aristotle uses reason as a guide when using other parts of the soul so that we can flourish as human beings as particular creatures with a rational capacity. Can the highest good lie within our worldly lives or is it something that extends beyond this life?

-BaylorBear16

Plato's Symposium 2

In class we discussed briefly Plato's theory of forms where the good consisted in all of these different universal concepts such as piety, wisdom, friendship, temperance, justice, and beauty. The soul knows the good and then descends to the body after it loses its wings forgetting the truth of the good. By participating in these different things, we can come to know the good better so that we can share it with others and return to the good as well. Some think that all of these things act as separate parts of the good and others say each one is the good itself. I think that both of these statements are correct and do not have to be opposed to each other.

It seems that all of these universal concepts are attached to the good in some way because we pursue them even in our everyday life. They bring us closer to the good and help orient ourselves out of the cave. In a way these things are the good, but by themselves we can only get a good understanding of a portion of the good. We are each interested in different parts and this part can draw us into the good so that we develop a desire to expand our knowledge of the good to other forms as well. In this way the different forms act as parts to makeup the good. Therefore, it seems like the different forms act both as parts of a whole, but also as the whole itself to the interested individual so that they may explore the good in its entirety. To some extent, God is much like the good and how we interact with it. We understand parts of God and this limited knowledge spurs us on to learn more about God by instilling in us a desire. Do you think Plato's forms can be interpreted in a sense as both parts and whole together?

-BaylorBear16

Plato's Symposium 1

One of the more interesting lines in Plato's Symposium that caught my eye was when Diotima claims "love is wanting to possess the good forever" (206B). From this possessing of the good comes forth eternal happiness. Plato taps into an intrinsic desire that is universal across humanity as we constantly find ourselves aiming for happiness. This is one of the prime reasons, if not the only reason, for doing the activities that we pursue. However, this happiness is not found in the material created goods of this world, but lies in the good which is something far greater and divine. Through Diotima, Plato is arguing that there is in a sense an ultimate end, which humans pursue or are inclined to pursue that extends beyond this life. This ultimate end is the good, and possession of the good is love. By practicing true love for others and ourselves we can come closer to the good and obtain happiness.

In one way, I agree with Plato and think he is on the right track. The good can be seen as God and the ultimate end is communion with God or beatitude. This intellectual vision of God and unity with him in heaven is his true love for us coming to fruition. At the same time our free will allows us to choose to love God or not. Thus, true love is wanting to participate in the good or God through divine activity. However, love in this life is only a glimpse of the love God has for us and is only a part of the good despite sharing the same name as true love. As long as we recognize that love in this life is not the final end, then this lowered form of love is a good thing. It acts as an antecedent to the beatitude and perfect happiness that we seek by giving us a taste of the good. Additionally, one must be careful in determining the object of love as this same good can be corrupted to turn our hearts away from God and true love. Thus, there are people who love money, material objects, power, glory, and sex as their ultimate end which will always leave them unsatisfied and wanting more. If love plays a central role in pursuing the good, can it equally play a major role in turning away from the good?

-BaylorBear16

Plato's Apology

Plato's Apology holds warnings that still hold true to this day and continue to be applicable to the events of the time. When Socrates asks the craftsmen, poets, and politicians to share their "wisdom" it becomes apparent that they know very little of anything that extends beyond their own profession. Some do not even know their own job. Yet they live their lives and make decisions as if they do know these things. This same issue can be found among the majority of people in America today. Sometimes when I am scrolling through Facebook, I'll come across one of those controversial posts about some issue and see the relentless stream of comments with each person giving their opinion on the matter. What always astounds me is the ridiculous amount of misinformation found in the comments from both sides of the isle. Thousands of comments from thousands of people who claim to know the answer, the truth of the matter, when really they do not even understand the issue themselves. Many in our society have been taught that their opinion is just as good as anybody else's so much so that most disregard the necessity for thorough research. Additionally, we have become addicted to the instant gratification of our desires. So many seek to find the quickest route to an answer, rather than go through the process of educating themselves. Education and research take too much time and so they would rather have someone tell them the answer. Most do not understand the arguments and foundations for their own beliefs, but at the same time believe they have equal authority to speak on such matters. The scariest part is that these same people believe they have done the research or have put in the hard work to find the truth.

The greatness of Socrates is that he stopped these very individuals and forced them to explain their beliefs. His Socratic method turned the individual in on themselves so that they might realize the gravity of their erred judgment. In a way he gave them the gift of wisdom through humility. This is an invaluable lesson that we should apply to ourselves. It is good to look in the mirror once and a while and know who you are. Although Socrates is not around anymore to question us, we have Plato's account to remind us of the duty to our own self to pursue the truth, know what we believe, and why we believe it with substantial arguments. What are some other qualities besides humility and thorough inquiry that Socrates gives us in order to better attain wisdom?

-BaylorBear16

The Allegory of the Cave

There were several things that really stood out to me in Plato's Allegory. The first is how different Plato's topics and ideas are compared to all of the previous Greek philosophers we have studied. Their ideas focus on the makeup and origin of the objective natural world and immaterial world. Plato's primary concern in this allegory is the improvement and betterment of man's soul by reorienting it towards the good. This is radically different and shifts the attention away from the gods of the Homeric tradition and towards something greater which contains the good. It is more applicable to the every day lives of the reader and shares valuable wisdom that transcends time and culture. Even readers today can still gain wisdom of how to act and better themselves through the allegory by keeping the story in mind when making life decisions.

Another idea that appears quite different and promising is that every human has an intrinsic potentiality to reach the highest good. No longer are we necessarily bound by the limitations of this world. Regardless of ethnicity, class, or sex, our souls can each attain the same ultimate goal. It is in our own nature to want the good and we all have the capability to reach it. This idea is revolutionary and is also an inherently Christian value that can be found throughout the tradition of the church. This allegory can be used as a metaphor for one's pursuit of God. We all have the ability and intrinsic dignity as human rationale creatures to achieve the ultimate end in communion with God and others. We are born in a world of sin and our human condition entraps us in this cave. However, through faith and reason we can all see the light outside the cave and share it with others still blinded by the darkness. This is how I relate the allegory to my life. What is the most important and valuable idea that you get from Plato's allegory of the cave?

-BaylorBear16

The Sophists

It is clear from the reading that Plato holds a level of disdain and prejudice against the sophists when describing their thoughts and actions. While there is some truth that underlies these negative beliefs, there probably were a lot of good things that the sophists did during their popularity in Athens. Much of what we have today relies heavily upon the opinions and views of Plato and Aristotle. With that said, there are certainly specific ideas of the sophists that seem alarming. The fact that they charged such high amounts of money and were mainly selective towards the wealthy aristocrats of Athens stains their reputation. These practices appear disingenuous by placing the emphasis and priority on money first instead of knowledge and education. Compared to many of the philosophers in ancient Greece, they do not present themselves as lovers of wisdom and pursuers of the good. Rather, the goal seems to be make a nice living first and then share their knowledge on rhetoric.

Extending off of this lowered sense of the good, many sophists aim to win arguments regardless of whether their view aims at the good. They elevate rhetoric to a level that exceeds its value and treat it as the sole necessity to success in this life. It does not matter whether a certain view is objectively better than another. As long as you can argue your view the best, then for all practical purposes you are right and speak the truth. They have left behind many of the delineations set by morality and look to logos as "a powerful master". This explains why some argue that the sophists were moral relativists. This is extremely dangerous and invites consequences that most people would not support such as social injustices. Disregarding a view of the good and leaving society to the subject of whoever can argue their point the best opens the floor to evil individuals coming to power through their use of rhetoric. We have to keep in mind the bias that Plato brings in his writings and understand that the actual sophists could have been very different from this portrayal, nevertheless this particular view of the sophists acts as a warning to future generations about the power of rhetoric. Are most people in our society influenced by rhetoric more than the substance of the ideas argued? If so, how can we heighten people's alertness to this influence?

-BaylorBear16

Democritus and the Atomists

It is amazing to think that these Greek thinkers were able to make conclusions about the natural world around us thousands of years before they were proved correct without the technological advancements we had at the time. There are many excerpts such as 67A7 that hold so many truths about the particles of life with which much of today's science is established. Democritus and Leucippus describe their "atom" as a small particle that cannot be seen with the naked eye for the most part. They are infinite in number and cannot be divided. Through their interactions the physical material world can be explained. Although we now know that there are smaller particles than even electrons and protons, the traits of the "atom" that Democritus is describing can still be attributed to these as well.

Democritus attempts to explain everything, even thoughts, with a mechanistic theory on the atomic level. Through the movement and bumping of atoms, our senses and perceptions can be explained. Much of this holds true for many external things in this world as well as interior processes of the body. However, there seems to be an issue when attempting to explain thoughts and rationality. Most people would agree that humans have the ability to reason at a level higher than other organisms and can develop their own ideas spontaneously. This formulation of thoughts and ideas cannot be explained using the mechanistic atomic model of Democritus. We can know what parts of the brain are associated with certain thoughts and how sensations travel throughout the body through the firing of nerves. But we fail to explain how these thoughts formulate. In order for a mechanistic explanation to hold true for everything there needs to be an atom that our thoughts can be traced to and yet we have never been able to scientifically find that first cause. The thoughts just happen. Thus, it seams that there is something else immaterial in addition to a material atomic world that exists such as a soul. Do you think that there is only our material existence or must there also be something else that can help explain our being?

-BaylorBear16

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae

Anaxagoras returns us to the past philosophers of Parmenides and particularly Xenophanes. Rather than agree with Empedocles on there being two parts to the Arche (love and strife), Anaxagoras opposes this thought and sides with Parmenides in having only one: the Nous. There is a sense of unity found within Parmenides that carries over to Anaxagoras. Everything comes from one source and in this relation everything is connected together. Additionally, Anaxagoras departs from Empedocles in emphasizing seeds rather than roots as the metaphor for the parts that make up things. The idea from our class discussion that the seeds explain our ability to make an influential mark on them is interesting. They can be molded to a certain end through an outside force and the actions of things around them. It shows how we can change the shape and traits of material things and that these parts that make a whole change with our influence.

What struck me about Anaxagoras was the description of the Nous in excerpt B12 and how similar it sounds to the ideas of Xenophanes. The Nous is infinite and everything can be traced back to the Nous. It is independent or "alone itself by itself" and the purest thing possible. The Nous also knows everything about that which comes from it and is the strongest or all-powerful. All of these traits sound like the creator of Xenophanes who also was separate from his creation and yet omniscient. Also, the word Nous means mind which is something immaterial and yet has a strong relation to the material. Thus far, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras offer the closest thing to the Christian idea of God. It seems that we are slowly coming closer and closer to God through reason only to culminate in the coming of Christianity with revelation. I cannot wait to get to Aristotle and Plato who may offer the best that reason alone can give us with regards to God. Between Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras who do you think offers ideas closest to the resemblance of God?

-BaylorBear16

Zeno of Elea

Zeno's paradoxes such as the millet seed and stadium show us the limit of our senses and that reason is something that we must all rely upon in order to know things (A29 and A28). Although troublesome at first, these paradoxes can be overcome by evaluating the assumptions that support them. One can also question the conclusions that can be appropriately attributed to them. Zeno seems to think that our senses cannot be trusted at all due to our inability to accurately measure the weight of a millet seed. However, this lack of ability does not necessarily lead to the doubting and distrust of our senses. This seems to be a bit of a leap. Instead, a more moderate conclusion would be that our senses are not acute or sensitive enough to discern certain physical attributes of nature. Our senses can still be trusted, but it depends on what case or task we are talking about. From this perspective, Zeno's paradoxes are important in showing us the limitations of our abilities. They show us the importance of reason and its crucial role in understanding the world around us. With reason we can know that the millet seed weighs something whether or not we feel that weight in our hands.

It seems to me that we need both reason and our senses collectively to make accurate decisions or observations about nature. Additionally, these paradoxes show how complex our senses are as we rely on all of them together to discern facts. Many of the paradoxes only test a single sense at a time, but in daily life many of our actions and observations are performed with all of the senses contributing something to the whole. Also, in using our senses we are using reason to evaluate and make judgments about what we sense. Therefore, to conclude that we can only trust our reason may not rule out the option of trusting the senses. I am not convinced that these paradoxes prove that I cannot trust my senses, but I do think they are important in reminding us of our limitations as human. Do you think Hume was influenced by Zeno, because his skepticism about doubting our senses and relying on reason or science are very similar?

-BaylorBear16

Empedocles of Acragas

Empedocles explains creation and death with the opposites of love and strife (#47, B17). There is this balance between the two of constant motion and harmony, whereby the life of this world is changing back and forth between life and destruction. There is a strange relationship between them with both being in conflict and yet they can never be separated from each other. In fact they need each other, despite their struggle. It seems that life is not even possible without both of them. This relationship is evident in nature as new life is brought about from death. It must exist for nature to flourish and is a necessary cycle. Science has shown us the benefits of this cycle through evolution and natural selection where only those with the best traits can survive.

This cycle shows us that there is some underlying good within the death and destruction that exists. Evil can lend itself to good things long term. Examples of this are the massive outbreaks of disease. Millions of people have died from disease and death is not something to take lightly, but due to these diseases humanity has become immune to many of them and scientific advances such as vaccines have come about. Another example is war where millions have died as well, and yet many technological advances would not have come about if it was not for war. In nature, natural forest fires can wipe out an entire forest and habitat, but from the ashes comes new life and fires remove all of the underlying debris on the forest floor giving it a fresh start.

This cycle of good and evil is not something new, as many eastern cultures also have a concept of two opposites in harmony together to bring about life. Empedocles seems to be hitting a strong note that is naturally found among human thought. We seek explanations to the chaos that surrounds us and attempt to bring rationality, structure, and order to the life experiences that negatively affect us. Empedocles is adding to that narrative with his own explanation of the world. Do you think Empedocles would accept the views of eastern Asia such as Yin and Yang which play a very similar role to love and strife in nature?

-BaylorBear16

Parmenides of Elea

Parmenides seems to question the ideas of this world based on sensory experience and argues that one should use their understanding through the use of reason to formulate knowledge about "what-is" (28B1, B8). Through this rejection of sensory experience the goddess makes room for her new way of thought about the world. However, this idea about experience seems impossible to actually live by for several reasons. To reject knowledge based on the senses is to cast doubt upon everything in this world. If I doubt my sensory experience, then how can I even function in this life? How can I trust anything that Parmenides is telling me or that I'm reading? How can Parmenides trust anything related to the story about the goddess? Additionally, our reasoning is constantly influenced by our past experiences whether we are conscious of it or not. The environment in which we are raised influences our development and way of thought. Babies and children are too young to reason and are constantly influenced by experience during development. To live this life it appears impossible to completely doubt sensory experience.

At the same time, Parmenides does seem to get at some level of truth behind these claims. There are things about the world and our existence metaphysically that cannot be explained through empirical sensory experience. Much of the immaterial world and belief in souls cannot be verified by sensory experience in this world and yet we believe in souls. Parmenides could be warning us not to solely believe in only the sensory world, which is a much more acceptable claim among most people. He could also be referring to the knowledge of the masses which is usually void of any use of reason. In this sense, it is important to use your reason to seek the truth rather than follow the masses who would have been largely uneducated during his time. Viewing his claim as a warning about seeking truth, rather than an absolute belief to live by, presents a better appropriation of Parmenides. Do you think Parmenides rejects the truth of sensory experience completely or can it be interpreted differently as a warning?

-BaylorBear16

Heraclitus of Ephesus

The first thing I noticed when reading about Heraclitus is the arrogance and pride that his ideas or excerpts about humans exude. Unlike the tone used by Xenophanes, which has just enough pride to force his intended audience to look in the mirror, Heraclitus seems to pass the reasonable threshold being associated with blanket statements about humanity and some personal attacks on other great thinkers. Despite these attacks, his views of a creator appear to be influenced by both Xenophanes and the Milesians as seen in excerpts B114, B30, B90, B76, and B36. Heraclitus believes in one all-powerful law that created the world around him. Similar to Xenophanes, there is a lack of humanization within his one "logos". On the other hand, this logos is exemplified as fire just as the Milesians looked to water and aer as representations of their creative substance. The logos is the source of the physical and supernatural world. Additionally, this logos is constantly a part of our lives and can be realized by everyone through "understanding".

I did find it interesting how Heraclitus emphasizes understanding and wisdom over simply having knowledge, which relates back to our previous class discussion. Philosophy emphasizes understanding and discerning the "why?" and "how?" of a moral life over memorization of facts. This is part of what makes philosophy so important, because it forces students to think deeply about questions that they have never spent the time to answer. It allows students to think critically instead of practicing checklist memorization. Having done both in my life to a significant degree, I see how philosophy has made me a better thinker and allowed me to grow deeper in my faith. It has helped me gain understanding of the world and people outside the lens of science, which is something that other fields cannot offer. How do you think Heraclitus compares to the other Greek philosophers we have studied so far? Is he proposing something totally unique or are there certain ideas that he is influenced by?

-BaylorBear16

Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism

Although Pythagoras is known today for his mathematics, it is clear that many in the Greek world looked to him regarding religious philosophical ideas. He is one of the first Greeks to come up with the idea of the transmigration of souls as seen in excerpts (14,1), (14.8a), and (14.8). This is the belief that the soul is immortal and goes from one organism to the next after death of the body. This idea can be seen throughout the world beyond Greek culture in Egypt, India, and many native tribes on multiple continents. Without revelation, it seems that there is an inherent inclination in humans to formulate such an idea. This could be due to the fact that there is truth in the belief that souls are immortal. Immortality has always been a common belief throughout the history and cultures of humanity. Additionally, we have a tendency to personify or project our humanity onto other organisms. Thus, it is not surprising that ideas such as excerpt (21B7) would be found in association with the transmigration of souls.

The Christian tradition would reject this idea because it goes against many beliefs such as humans being a particular creature of a certain kind. We are rational creatures capable of loving God and by our very existence as human rational creatures created in his likeness, we have a sort of innate dignity separate from every other organism.Thus, it would not follow that a human soul would then become an animal soul or plant soul. There is also a special unity between the body and soul as exemplified through Jesus Christ with our bodies being part of salvation in his second coming. Despite these conflicts, there appears to be a slow rising trend of metaphysical thought among the Greeks moving away from the Homeric tradition and towards the Christian tradition with the Milesians, Xenophanes, and now Pythagoras. This process reminds me of Aquinas' teaching on the intertwining of faith and reason. The Greek philosophers appear to be slowly getting at the truth through the use of only reason, but this also leads to the many errors that we are finding and is a far slower way of attaining the truth. Therefore, one also needs faith in addition to reason, which can be seen in the form of revelation through Jesus. Do you think there is a slow developing trend of moving away from the Homeric tradition to a more Christian perspective or is this just coincidence and our infusion of our own ideology into the Greek thinkers?

-BaylorBear16

Xenophanes of Colophon

The beliefs and excerpts of Xenophanes appear to be fairly unique considering he argued for a monotheistic form of a creator rather than follow the pluralistic tradition of Homer. In several of the excerpts such as B11, B12, B14, B15, B16, and A12 Xenophanes is raising concerns that many modern day Christians and monotheists would share about the Greek gods. They are far too human and perform actions that are immoral even for the Greeks. At times the most powerful of the gods, Zeus, acts dishonestly, adulterous, and unjust. These are traits that are seen as part of a human condition rather than a form of divinity. The gods may be powerful beyond measure, but they can act with the maturity of a teenager. This appears to be the result of too much humanity being placed into the belief of the gods. Although it is good for a certain human connection to be present as seen in Jesus, the Greek gods exhibit the extreme form of this. God is above race and material items in this world. He is immaterial and several excerpts seem to agree with this by amusingly noting how some might have thought about their gods.

At the same time there is something that Christianity contains and that the beliefs of Xenophanes lack, which may help explain why one spread throughout the world and the other did not. One answer is God's love for humanity as creatures of a specific kind exhibited through Jesus Christ. This radical idea of God loving us so much that he sent his only son to die for our sins and save us is something that the creator of Xenophanes never did. His god does not communicate with his creation and is somewhat removed from it. The Christian God not only interacts with his creation, but gives himself for the good of his creation through eternal love. This seems to be a proper balance between the immoral human Greek gods and the silent god of Xenophanes that has no love for us. What would Xenophanes think of our God? What major differences between the Christian God and the god of Xenophanes do you find interesting?

-BaylorBear16

Sappho

Greek women, with the exception of the wealthy and maybe those from Sparta, were generally viewed as second to men in Greek culture. Women were so isolated from society focusing mainly on activities within their household. It is ironic that, despite these restrictions placed on women, the Greek god of Athena is one of wisdom, war, and the arts. These topics seem to be hardly connected to life within the home and Athena comes to be the patron god of Athens. Additionally, Greece is the birthplace of democracy, but most women were stripped of their political rights. Thus, it is important to realize that even in a highly free western culture, injustice can still be found among its ranks as seen in the status of women in society.

With that being said, Sappho represents a rare light among ancient Greek writers being a woman and overcoming this seemingly insurmountable hurdle. She may be the first female author of ancient Greece that I have studied in a class. Having invented her own Sapphic meter and spreading her works from Sicily to Egypt, it is clear that she was one of the great poets of her time equal to men. Although I disagree with her seemingly homoerotic nature of poetry, it is no surprise that it may not have been condemned at the time due to immoral homosexual activity amongst males being present in Greek culture.

Nevertheless, her poetry is very real and holds deep emotional sentiments that can be felt by all regardless of who the feelings are aimed at. Feelings of unrequited love, loved ones being taken away from us, and jealousy are all emotions that we can relate to regardless of our time period. These poems contain an underlying human connection that transcends time and culture where placing ourselves in similar situations comes naturally as we read the texts. Do you agree with this idea of a seemingly everlasting human connection or does reading these poems feel distant from your perspective?

-BaylorBear16

The Milesians: Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes

While it is easy to not take seriously the particular views expressed through their excerpts, these early philosophers represent the science of their time and show the transformation of knowledge through peer review. Being pupils of the one before them, they learned the views of their teacher and made changes to these beliefs according to their own observations of the natural world. Excerpts 5, 9, 21, and 24 show this progression of thought and shifting of beliefs from water to infinite apeiron to air as the substance of the world.

Additionally, there is some truth underlying these many beliefs which can be attributed to their technological inability to observe things not seen with the naked eye. These ideas of motion and air transforming different substances around them can now be explained by the interaction of atomic particles and changing temperatures. The weather patterns explained in excerpt 29 and 16 are mostly attributed to the atoms of water responding to hot and cold environments. Despite these incorrect explanations, they are also right about the physical world made of matter and the existence of the supernatural such as souls. Thus, reading these excerpts brings some level of humility to our own understanding of the world.

In a society that is dominated by science, technology, and the evidence behind it, we need not forget that our understanding of the world even 100 years from now will be drastically different from what it is today. The more we know, the more we realize that we know very little. So the next time that a scientist claims to have solved some major scientific question, take it with a level of humility. Know that there will be a different explanation with time as each scientific claim is just another part of a long continuous pursuit of the truth regarding the physical world. Can science explain everything or are there areas of study with which science has no explanation?

-BaylorBear16

A Presocratics Reader Intro

From the reading, I find it interesting that there are several aspects of the first Greek philosophers during the pre-Socratic period that have continued within the philosophical tradition throughout human history, even to this day. Starting at the very beginning with Thales, there has always been this focus on trying to better understand the world around us both physical and supernatural. Providing arguments and evidence for certain beliefs or schools of thought regarding natural phenomena and the existence of the universe. Asking deep complex questions about what the world is made of, the existence of God or a creator, how to live a good life, etc... From Thales to Aristotle to Aquinas to Descartes to Hume to Plantinga, these questions have consistently been addressed using forms of argument and evidence to establish their view.

Additionally, Hesiod brings forth another practice found throughout the tradition which is an appeal to the divine. Hesiod often appealed to the muses to support his claims about the beginning of the universe. This is seen in later pre-Socratics such as Homer and can be found throughout history in different forms whether it be an appeal to divine revelation, miracles, or faith. Although the context and support is very different, with certain appeals being more credible than others, the idea of referring to the divine for support is constant throughout the tradition.

Finally, it is interesting that the pre-Socratics studied many different areas of interest under philosophy. They gave no thought to the idea that their philosophical ideas had to be separated from the science, politics, or mathematics of their time. Rather, these ideas of thought helped inform their decision making and actions when studying issues in other fields. In today's society, all of these fields are completely independent and separated from each other from pre-school to college. Is this the best way to educate students? Should these fields be kept isolated from each other or should we not be afraid to let our philosophical beliefs inform our pursuits in other fields?

-BaylorBear16

Hello PHI 3310

This is my first "blog" that I have ever done and I will be learning as I go. I'm interested in the comments that I will receive and look forward to the year ahead for this classical philosophy class. I haven't spent any time on a blog before, but I will give it my best shot when making posts. Hope you enjoy it!

-BaylorBear16