Plato does not value experience
‘Aristotle’s theories of the 4 causes is convincing’
Evaluating Aristotle’s 4 causes shows that there are strengths and weaknesses of this theory from Plato and Aristotle. Both views include strengths and weaknesses, with Aristotle’s theory. Plato’s cave analogy makes sense as it bears with reality to a certain extent but although this is true the cave allegory is just to simplistic for the four causes to be justified therefore contradicts the argument for the four causes. Plato also argues that pure reason does not exist.
Teleology is the study of the ends or purposes that things serve, and Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology has repercussions throughout his philosophy. Aristotle believed that the best way to understand why things are the way they are is to understand what purpose they were designed to serve. For example, we can dissect an animal to see how its anatomical organs look and what they’re made of, but we only understand each organ when we perceive what it’s supposed to do. Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology implies that there is a reason for everything. Just as Aristotle sees purpose in anatomical and biological systems, he sees human life as organized and directed toward a final end as well.
Although Aristotle makes some good points to back up his theory of the four causes but in other points and theories he says nothing can come from nothing, everything has a cause makes sense, which we agree with, but he makes a blatant exception for the prime mover as the prime mover suggests that there wasn’t anything in the beginning but the prime mover theory is suggesting that there was.
Plato’s idea that reason is important and logic is good and all of this yields certainty is convincing because it fits in with four causes theory, but he says pure reason does not exist and he also ignores the vital role of experience for any thinking at all which makes does not make sense.
To conclude although the four causes has a strong argument, there are to many
Evaluating Aristotle’s 4 causes shows that there are strengths and weaknesses of this theory from Plato and Aristotle. Both views include strengths and weaknesses, with Aristotle’s theory. Plato’s cave analogy makes sense as it bears with reality to a certain extent but although this is true the cave allegory is just to simplistic for the four causes to be justified therefore contradicts the argument for the four causes. Plato also argues that pure reason does not exist.
Teleology is the study of the ends or purposes that things serve, and Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology has repercussions throughout his philosophy. Aristotle believed that the best way to understand why things are the way they are is to understand what purpose they were designed to serve. For example, we can dissect an animal to see how its anatomical organs look and what they’re made of, but we only understand each organ when we perceive what it’s supposed to do. Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology implies that there is a reason for everything. Just as Aristotle sees purpose in anatomical and biological systems, he sees human life as organized and directed toward a final end as well.
Although Aristotle makes some good points to back up his theory of the four causes but in other points and theories he says nothing can come from nothing, everything has a cause makes sense, which we agree with, but he makes a blatant exception for the prime mover as the prime mover suggests that there wasn’t anything in the beginning but the prime mover theory is suggesting that there was.
Plato’s idea that reason is important and logic is good and all of this yields certainty is convincing because it fits in with four causes theory, but he says pure reason does not exist and he also ignores the vital role of experience for any thinking at all which makes does not make sense.
To conclude although the four causes has a strong argument, there are to many