The Minds of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
The minds of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
SOCRATES, one of those who sought to develop a more consistent and purer concept of god, but he paid the price of a pioneer in that the masses misunderstood him. He was considered as the destroyer of the gods of the Greeks. He maintained that the centrality of the real essence of man and individual is not only its acceptance of the different gods but the real understanding of one’s relationship with others in a rational manner. This implies a rational knowledge with all its capabilities within the realm of knowledge – the highest god, thus, the nature and conceptualization of god, for him, is the actual understanding of knowledge which one god. For Socrates, is something that can be reached through knowing and knowledge that the individual can possess?
PLATO, the pupil of Socrates, uses the word God, but in a very confused way. Most of the time, he used the word god just a ordinary masses think of them, as beings governing different realms of the universe. In many of his works, we cannot actually distinguish how-in the process he thinks of gods in the same manner as the ordinary citizen of Greece and with his noble background (Drake, 1958), for in it, the mind of the masses, most of the time prevailed. Indeed, the popular conceptions of the gods are strewn all over these thoughts and works, but there were times that. He thought of the existence of one supreme god who is the master and ruler of the entire universe. In his book, the Timaeus, he accounts for the creation of the universe by using a demiurge, or sort of architect, who takes already-created ideas and matter and moulds the universe. In another place, we find him speaking of the creators as the source of souls.
ARISTOTLE on this point is clear. He noted that there are two causes in the universe – form and matter. That, “forms are forces which realize themselves in the world of matter, just as the idea of the artist realizes itself in marble,” was central to
SOCRATES, one of those who sought to develop a more consistent and purer concept of god, but he paid the price of a pioneer in that the masses misunderstood him. He was considered as the destroyer of the gods of the Greeks. He maintained that the centrality of the real essence of man and individual is not only its acceptance of the different gods but the real understanding of one’s relationship with others in a rational manner. This implies a rational knowledge with all its capabilities within the realm of knowledge – the highest god, thus, the nature and conceptualization of god, for him, is the actual understanding of knowledge which one god. For Socrates, is something that can be reached through knowing and knowledge that the individual can possess?
PLATO, the pupil of Socrates, uses the word God, but in a very confused way. Most of the time, he used the word god just a ordinary masses think of them, as beings governing different realms of the universe. In many of his works, we cannot actually distinguish how-in the process he thinks of gods in the same manner as the ordinary citizen of Greece and with his noble background (Drake, 1958), for in it, the mind of the masses, most of the time prevailed. Indeed, the popular conceptions of the gods are strewn all over these thoughts and works, but there were times that. He thought of the existence of one supreme god who is the master and ruler of the entire universe. In his book, the Timaeus, he accounts for the creation of the universe by using a demiurge, or sort of architect, who takes already-created ideas and matter and moulds the universe. In another place, we find him speaking of the creators as the source of souls.
ARISTOTLE on this point is clear. He noted that there are two causes in the universe – form and matter. That, “forms are forces which realize themselves in the world of matter, just as the idea of the artist realizes itself in marble,” was central to