Category: Aristotle

Introduction

Emerging knowledge of the cognitive significance of emotions sparks new debates in ethics, law, and politics. Huppes-Cluysenaer (2018) states that Aristotle is frequently mentioned as a pioneer because of his idea of emotions in Rhetoric. Additionally, the philosopher distinguishes two moralities, each with its interpretation of the cognitive role of emotions: a civic morality of judicial process in the Nicomachean Ethics and a contemplative ethics of theoretical study in Politics (Huppes-Cluysenaer, 2018). For instance, consideration for the cognitive function of emotions in civic morality involves realizing that competence in judges and other decision-makers is founded on self-education via self-reflection. The investigation of contemplative morality in politics focuses on the possibility of educating citizens emotions through legislation. Rhetoric is concerned with persuading decision-makers in Law Courts and the Assembly. Therefore, when it comes to emotions, it is more about persuading than it is about teaching (Huppes-Cluysenaer, 2018). The paper claims that the role of emotions via the prism of Aristotelian philosophy is crucial in ethics, rhetoric, criminal law, and politics.

Aristotle

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher who made significant and enduring contributions to every facet of human knowledge. According to Shamey and Kuehni (2020), he was born in Stagira, northern Greece, to a father who was the local kings physician. When the philosopher was eighteen, he enrolled in the philosopher Platos Academy in Athens, where he remained until Platos death in 347 BCE (Shamey & Kuehni, 2020). Moreover, the ruler of Greece at the time, Philip II of Macedon, asked Aristotle to teach his son Alexander the Great, which he did for thirty-three years. Tutoring Alexander offered Aristotle several possibilities, one of which was establishing the Lyceum and its library at Athens in 335 BCE, the foremost educational establishment of the period, where he lectured until 323 BCE (Shamey & Kuehni, 2020). It is often thought that just around one-third of his written works have survived to this day. They consist of forty-seven pieces, some of which may have been authored by followers to reflect his beliefs (Shamey & Kuehni, 2020). The variety of topics demonstrates the broadness of Aristotles ideas and interests, one of which was the study of emotion.

Rationality and Emotion

No part of human mental life is more fundamental to the quality and purpose of ones existence than emotions. Based on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they make life worthwhile to live and, at times, to end (Emotion, 2018). Hence, it is not unexpected that most great classical philosophers, such as Aristotle, had distinctive theories of emotions (Emotion, 2018). Thus, it is vital to comprehend how Aristotle explained emotion and its relation to reason.

In everyday parlance, people frequently consider emotion as the polar opposite of reason. For instance, passion may confuse ones judgment, causing one to make a poor decision (Neblo, 2020). Pathos is a crucial concept commonly translated as emotion nowadays (Bombelli, 2018). Passion or affection is the polar opposite of reason (logos) in the modern-Cartesian model and is understood in a mechanical or functionalist manner (Bombelli, 2018). The Aristotelian emotion (pathos) is inextricably linked to the rational world. Bombelli (2018) acknowledges that the philosophy of Aristotle reveals the complex connection between reason and emotion. His perspective provides a pre-Cartesian and organicist anthropological model based on the ontological notion of continuity, in which realms of nature are interconnected: they are distinctive but not segregated (Bombelli, 2018, p. 53). Consequently, logic and instinct are not opposed but rather entwined. Emotion is intellectually significant and implies many types of knowledge.

Reason and emotion are interlinked as parts of the same theoretical continuity. Bombelli (2018) asserts that based on Aristotles theory of knowledge, the knowledge processes, from the most rudimentary to the most advanced, indicate a strong relationship between emotion and reason. Pathos performs a cognitive role, implying, although problematically, the pair consciousness-awareness. Bombeli (2018) adds that emotion is essential for understanding reality on many levels, including knowledge, moral behavior, language, and politics. Furthermore, a comprehensive reasoning model (logos) arises, including legal and political reasoning. Unlike the contemporary, Cartesian viewpoint, Aristotle regarded reason as a blend of evaluative and affective dimensions.

The Phenomenological Explanation of Emotion in the Rhetoric

Emotion (pathos) plays an essential role in persuasion because it is incorporated into rhetoric categorizations. Stucki and Sager (2018) suggest that, according to Aristotles theory, rhetoric is based on the interaction of three elements: ethos, pathos, and logos. Hence, persuasion occurs when the speech is given in such a way that the orator is worthy of trust (ethos), when the speech evokes emotions in the audience (pathos), and when the speech establishes truth (logos). According to Aristotle, studying emotions is crucial in rhetoric (Brito, 2018). For instance, rhetoric is the art of persuading someone of a particular opinion; nevertheless, creating an opinion can be influenced by emotions and reasons.

The orator should, therefore, analyze emotions to get the judgments they desire from their audience, whether in deliberative assemblies or lawsuits. Thus, Aristotle presents a generic definition of emotion that does not attempt to be scientific and thus get to the core of emotion but rather be beneficial to the orator (Brito, 2018). Aristotle studies thirteen emotions in detail: anger (orge), calm (praotes), friendship, friendly feeling (philia, to philein), hate (misos), fear (phobos), confidence (tharsos), shame (aischune), kindness (charis), pity (eleos), indignation (nemesan), envy (phthonos), emulation (zelos), and contempt (kata phronesis) (Brito, 2018, p. 204). The philosopher follows an essentially consistent approach in examining each specific emotion, describing anger as the first emotion he investigates. Aristotle begins with a dialectic definition that he thinks is appropriate in light of the words usage, such as anger being described as a desire associated with pain (Brito, 2018). This idea is followed by an explanation of, first, what the emotional state of angry individuals is, second, who makes them angry, and third, why they get angry with the individuals.

The philosopher devised a sophisticated model for understanding the structure of common emotions. It contains four main components, most thoroughly treated in the section on emotions in the second book of Rhetoric (Medieval theories of the emotions, 2022). Firstly, the cognitive aspect is an unplanned appraisal, for instance, the belief that something favorable or terrible occurs or may occur to the subject or to someone else in a way that affects the subject. Furthermore, the emotional component is related to a subjectively perceived pleasurable or negative sensation regarding the evaluations content. Thirdly, the dynamical component is a behavioral drive to act generally associated with an emotional appraisal. Finally, there are usual physiological effects such as heartbeat alterations.

The Scientific Explanation of Emotion in De Anima

Aristotle clearly states in De Anima that the definitions of emotions and the concepts and interactions that comprise their study in Rhetoric are unsuitable for psychology. The philosopher considers psychology a branch of natural science, such as physics, because science does not provide the substance of emotions (Brito, 2018). Emotions are merely dialectic definitions, not only because they presume to be sufficient but because they conform to the orators and the audiences use of language; they also stay in the intellectual realm (Brito, 2018). Even though they adequately explain the linguistic games that apply to each emotion at this level, they leave out an essential attribute: its existence in the body. Brito (2018) notes that concerning the latter, anger might be characterized as the blood boiling or the heated material around the heart. Nevertheless, such a physical description of anger would be inadequate, not only because the same physiological reaction might occur without experiencing anger but also because it ignores how anger is perceived by those who experience it.

Thus, both components, namely dialectic definition and the existence in the body, should be included in a scientific description. Brito (2018) admits that Aristotle conceived emotion as a thought that occurs in the matter (en hule) whenever it exists, inseparable from the body, unavoidably corporal and necessary mentally. The debate over how to define emotion is part of an argument that aims to establish that the soul cannot be detached from the body and encompasses Aristotles whole psychology (Brito, 2018). Nevertheless, it may be detached from such an argument, and the entire depth of any emotion reveals that it is most significant to ethics and criminal justice.

Emotion in Ethics: Identifications of Moral Character

Aristotles idea on the impact of emotions on ethics and moral responsibility is based on this sophisticated theory of phenomenological and scientific explanations of emotion. Brito (2018) emphasizes that when moving forward from psychology to ethics, desire is the point at which emotions or passions intersect with moral behavior. Aristotle classifies desire (orexis) into three types: appetite (epithumia), temper (thumos), and volition (boulesis) (Brito, 2018). Emotions are responsible for appetite and temper, and anger usually leads to a desire for retribution (Brito, 2018). Consequently, the logical component of the soul, the intellect (nous), proposes volition as intellectual desire. Nevertheless, every goal implies completing an action that may conflict with others or be impossible to achieve (Brito, 2018). Deliberation is the process through which the aims are balanced against the available methods, accompanied by the selection or decision of a specific action or omission.

Emotions are inextricably linked to ethics and morality and can signify moral character. In Rhetoric, for example, Aristotle characterized anger as generated by a prominent and unjustified disrespect of ones person or associates, thus encouraging a troubled desire for conspicuous retribution (Parrott, 2019). By characterizing its evoking conditions and action inclination in moral terms, this definition connects anger to morality. Parrott (2019) states that a noticeable slight or insult may appear more as a world event than a part of emotion. Nevertheless, further examination reveals that it is not the event that is crucial but rather how a person interprets the incident. Following the definition of anger, Aristotles analysis demonstrates that interpreting an act as expressing unjustified hatred necessitates a nuanced examination of ethically essential problems such as justice, purpose, and social obligation (Parrott, 2019). When an emotion stimulates conduct toward a morally explicable end, it can be related to morality. Returning to Aristotles definition of anger, the desire for conspicuous retribution is unmistakably what componential theories currently classify as an action tendency (Parrott, 2019). Thus, vengeance connects anger to morality since vengeance is a morally justified act.

Emotions in Criminal Law

Based on Aristotles philosophy, emotions can be connected to judicial practice. When addressing the concept of a voluntary act in Book III of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle demonstrates the apparent relationship between moral behavior and the practical power to resolve criminal cases (Viano, 2018). According to the philosopher, differentiating between voluntary and involuntary is vital for those examining excellence and valuable for lawmakers in giving rewards and penalties. Because it directly concerns human acts and sentiments, criminal law is one of the most philosophical realms of the law (Viano, 2018). Moreover, emotions play a causal function in instigating criminal behavior while also playing an instrumental role during the trial as a persuasive method of influencing the judges in court.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle frequently emphasizes that anger as a desire for retribution is natural and healthy. For instance, the appropriate attitude toward anger, that is, the one that is according to the rules, against the appropriate person, and for the right reasons, is not criticized (Viano, 2018). On the contrary, it is regarded as noble and desirable, but indifference to a provocation is a flaw and indicative of an enslaved persons mindset.

Aristotle demonstrates a good attitude about anger and vengeance because the unjust act might be considered voluntary. Viano (2018) acknowledges that an act is classified as right or unjust based on whether or not it is voluntary. Within that framework, someone who commits an injustice when enraged is not unjust. Aristotle emphasizes this characteristic of rage further with the following explanation (Viano, 2018). Acts committed in rage are rightfully deemed not premeditated (oukek pronoias). It is not the person who acts in wrath, but the man who has irritated him, who begins the trouble.

Hence, the issue is not whether the crime occurred but rather its unfairness. From an ethical perspective, this relocation of the operating principle in an unjust act forced on the actor by anger might be understood metaphorically (Viano, 2018). Focusing simply on the reasoning, one may argue that the acts principle lies in the person who has generated the fury in themselves and has reacted to this by executing an unfair act willingly but without intentional intent. Nevertheless, one might understand this line in a legal sense, supposing that Aristotle is referring to the setting of criminal law, to the judgment regarding the character of an act of aggression, such as murder, committed in anger in response to a purposeful injustice.

Aristotle believed that anger, as an emotion, is one of the origins of criminal behavior. Viano (2018) asserts that anger is not a disease that must be treated but rather a soul capacity, an intrinsic need for retribution, and self-esteem recovery that responds to injustice and needs to be regulated and disciplined to be morally helpful. It is feasible to talk about virtue in the context of rage, but the objective measure of this virtue tends to the excess rather than the default (Viano, 2018). The philosopher claimed there is a place for both the justification of anger and the psychological gratification gained by retribution.

Aristotle employs legal reasoning in an ethical argument because he perceives a tight connection between these two areas. For instance, legislation is a function of politics, and politics incorporates ethics and is, in some ways, comparable to it (Viano, 2018). Thus, if ethics is the cornerstone of legislator science and emotions are the primary subject of Aristotelian ethics, it is evident that moral appraisal of the various emotions must play a primary role in the protracted legislative process. The acknowledgment of revenge as a motivator for crime and the transformation of personal feeling into a civic emotion allows for the beneficial integration of anger into law (Viano, 2018). Furthermore, the fundamental relevance of the appeal to the judges anger in court can only be attributed to the fact that this emotion expresses a high moral value that is already an integral component of the conceptions of law and justice.

Emotions in Politics

Politics has an emotional foundation in Aristotles thought since emotions are required for political stability. Nevertheless, emotions might be viewed as a cause of instability (Coelho, 2018). Aristotles description of the crowd as the most outstanding judge in real-world situations demonstrates how passions assist in establishing and maintaining the best regime (Coelho, 2018). Thus, emotions were viewed as crucial for initiating, protecting, and expanding politics in ancient Greeceand how they might also be the principal hurdles.

The Politics by Aristotle is an excellent source for analyzing the role of emotions. Coelho (2018) argues that the book is not only a theoretical treatise; hence, its goal is not only to know about the good but also to assist people in making it a reality. For instance, most passages on emotion (pathos) presume a clear, practical sense and must be taken as advice to be applied in historical settings in real-world circumstances. Emotions have lately resurfaced as a prominent issue in political philosophy after being largely ignored in positivist and behaviorist approaches in the previous century (Coelho, 2018). The revived current interest in emotions in politics is based on Aristotle and other classical philosophers.

Moreover, Aristotle stresses the rational foundations of politics and law. Coelho (2018) states that two well-known political assertions are noteworthy in this regard: the assertion of the political animal as the only one with a reason (logos) and the endorsement of the supremacy of laws above the authority of man. Thus, Aristotles characterization of humans as rational animals motivates rationalistic methods. Significantly, the same passages might illustrate why emotions are crucial and unavoidable in political life. Coelho (2018) suggests that Aristotles viewpoint emphasizes the importance of emotion (pathos) as a basis of politics and democracy. When discussing emotions and the circumstances of political life, the citizen in Politics should be addressed. It entails possessing reason (logos) and having a healthy emotional state of the soul, naturally allowing one to exist as a free and equal person (Coelho, 2018). According to Aristotle, the crowd is emotionally more competent in excellent reasoning than a few individuals, making democracy the best government for real people and real cities (Coelho, 2018, p. 363). Pathos might be seen as a beneficial condition of communal life and effective governance.

Aristotles argument in Politics is mainly based on human nature. For instance, the philosopher claims that a familiar society (household) arises from the natural inclination to want to leave another being of the same kind behind (Coelho, 2018). Aristotle uses the naturalistic approach to deconstruct politics (polis) into smaller pieces, such as tribes, families, free men, women, children, and enslaved people. His purpose was to reach the human soul and the set of capacities and requirements that enable and necessitate polis for people (Coelho, 2018). Consequently, pathos is also a principle accountable for the political nature of humans. The reason why some people fail at this, such as individuals Aristotle refers to as war lovers, for instance, assists in understanding why reason and emotions operate as conditions in the potential of living well.

The relationship between nature and emotions is that feelings and sentiments are required for political life. Coelho (2018) adds that the term war lover (polemou epithumetes) refers to an emotional state that makes it unable to live together or participate in communities. As a result, war lovers fail to be able to live in communities because their emotions and personalities prevent them from doing so. This concept implies that all humans, by nature, require polis to be happy, but it is not feasible for all of them to be happy by nature (Coelho, 2018). It is also a starting point toward understanding how pathos enables polis. Participating in any relationship necessitates emotional sociability, without which one is guaranteed to fall short of achieving ones human nature.

Aristotle also considered that ancient Greeks were superior to Barbarians. According to Coelho (2018), Aristotle stated that Non-Greeks are, by definition, unable to live as citizens. For instance, Asians are incapable because, despite their intelligence, they lack spirit. Others, such as Europeans, are unable because of their elevated spirits. Greeks are more suited to political life, not because they are cleverer than Barbarians, but because they appropriately integrate emotions and reason (Coelho, 2018). It is not enough to be intelligent; one must also be spirited. Furthermore, the inherent potential to be a citizen includes not only the capacity to think correctly but also the capacity to adequately feel, which allows one to participate in a democratic society as a free and equal participant.

Emotion is a psychological concept allowing specific individuals to live as citizens while preventing others, such as women and enslaved people, from doing so. Citizens are distinct from war lovers, whose emotionality prohibits them from associating since they are incapable of friendship (philia), and naturally enslaved people, whose obedience or irascibility hinder them from participating as equal citizens in politics (Coelho, 2018). Based on Aristotles philosophy, citizens are also, by definition, distinct from women. Consequently, emotions play another part in thinking about the inherent distinctions between the citizen (man, adult) and the other family members. Womens inability to lead does not result from a lack of psychic aptitude (Coelho, 2018). According to Aristotle, women recognize the good and even deliberate wellbut their opinions are inevitably susceptible to male reasoning. This remark implies that women do not have a deliberative deficit (Coelho, 2018). The sovereignty absence in their deliberative ability stems from the essential structure of the family as a political organization: the male rule, and the woman are subordinated.

Therefore, relying on Aristotles vision, some, but not all, individuals can have a political life, which is also seen as an emotional capacity. Coelho (2018) notes that the philosopher believed that friendship based on emotions is a crucial benefit of polis since it avoids disintegration and civil conflict. For instance, people treat others and objects with care because they admire and cherish them. The absence of emotions in humans would ruin politics. Emotions may also serve as a faulty premise for political cohabitation. Coelho (2018) acknowledges that pathos can destabilize the polis when contemplating the possession of objects. Polis could not exist if people did not care about things, yet love for things is perhaps the greatest dangerous threat to the unity of the polis (Coelho, 2018). Love for money both roots and threatens political life. It is essential to understand that human flourishing (eudaimonia) is impossible without external personal and communal commodities to understand the practical significance of love for money (Coelho, 2018). Therefore, money is not the source of happiness but a necessary condition.

Despite his focus on reason as a human ability, Aristotle stressed that political life would be impossible if men were not emotional. Coelho (2018) notes that emotions are a precondition for political lifes potential. Their absence, scarcity, or abundance in persons unable to participate in social or political life demonstrates that their existence, in the proper proportion, makes political life possible. When political philosophy focuses on the actual world, the emotional characteristics of the crowd serve to emphasize the supremacy of democracy because the crowds logic and emotional temper are required for accurate governing and appropriate judgment (Coelho, 2018). Emotions in ancient Greece enabled the polis while also endangering it.

Conclusion

According to Aristotelian philosophy, emotions are fundamental in ethics, rhetoric, criminal law, and politics. The rational world is intrinsically related to pathos. Emotion has intellectual significance and indicates a wide range of knowledge. Rhetoric is the art of convincing someone of a specific point of view, yet, emotions can impact an opinion formation. Additionally, pathos is intrinsically tied to ethics and morals and can indicate moral character. Emotions are addressed in criminal law because they play a causative role in provoking criminal behavior and an instrumental role during the trial as a persuasive manner of convincing the judges in court. Finally, pathos was seen as critical for establishing, defending, and extending politics in ancient Greeceand it might also be one of the main obstacles.

References

Bombelli, G. (2018). Emotion and rationality in Aristotles Model: From anthropology to politics. In L. Huppes-Cluysenaer & N. Coelho (Eds.), Aristotle on emotions in law and politics (pp. 53-89). Springer. Web.

Brito, J.d.S.e. (2018). Aristotle on emotions in ethics and in criminal justice. In L. Huppes-Cluysenaer & N. Coelho (Eds.), Aristotle on emotions in law and politics (pp. 203-216). Springer. Web.

Coelho, N. M. M. S. (2018). Emotions: Impediment or basis of political life? In L. Huppes-Cluysenaer & N. Coelho (Eds.), Aristotle on emotions in law and politics (pp. 361-384). Springer. Web.

Emotion. (2018). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Huppes-Cluysenaer, L. (2018). The debate about emotion in law and politics. In L. Huppes-Cluysenaer & N. Coelho (Eds.), Aristotle on emotions in law and politics (pp. 3-10). Springer. Web.

Medieval theories of emotions. (2022). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Neblo, M. A. (2020). Impassioned democracy: The roles of emotion in deliberative theory. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 923-927. Web.

Parrott, W.G. (2019). Emotions as signals of moral character. In U. Hess & S. Hareli (Eds.), The social nature of emotion expression (pp. 161-177). Springer. Web.

Shamey, R., & Kuehni, R. G. (2020). Aristotle 384322 BC. In R. Shamey & R. G. Kuenhni (Eds.), Pioneers of color science (pp. 11-13). Springer. Web.

Stucki, I., & Sager, F. (2018). Aristotelian framing: Logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 373385. Web.

Viano, C. (2018). Ethical theory and judicial practice: Passions and crimes of passion in Plato, Aristotle and Lysias. In L. Huppes-Cluysenaer & N. Coelho (Eds.), Aristotle on emotions in law and politics (pp. 217-236). Springer. Web.

Ryles Views

Gilbert Ryle, a British philosopher who worked at Oxford University, considers the concept of knowledge in two dimensions such as knowing how and knowing that. The actions that include mental concepts and the description of how to bring them to their completion, as a rule, refer to knowing how (Fridland 708). For example, knowledge of how to play the guitar or how to speak German may be noted. Stating that a person knows how means to assert that he or she is capable of particular actions, and his or her behavior in this sense is moral as it follows certain rules.

In order to make sure of knowledge existing in the context of knowing how, one does not need to assume certain hidden processes and events related to the inner layer of consciousness. It is considered that a person knows how to read German or play the guitar in case his or her actions coincide with those that are expected from reading or playing. For some purposes, for example, didactic ones, one can formulate knowing that, which can be understood as a theoretical type of information about action planning and implementation. Therefore, Ryle believes that there is a fundamental difference between the identified knowledge dimensions.

Main body

Aristotles knowledge serves as a moment in which the stratification of existence is reflected. In this perspective, it is built by Aristotle in terms of the distinction between possession and use/action. The goal of Aristotle is knowledge in action and real knowing, which merge in the higher stratum of existence  the active mind (Ross 22). In his works, Aristotle integrates ideas from separate fields to the world of phenomena and considers them to be formed, through which sensory and obtainable objects are shaped per se. The philosopher subjects his study to nature, earth, and objects, systematizing data obtained about them and formulating general laws based on logical proofs as well as conclusions.

In his turn, Plato views knowledge, truth, and beauty in the supersensible world as opposed to Aristotle. Plato contrasts ideas to the world of phenomena: things  to a phantom and fragmented reflection of truth. Plato is the philosopher of the ideal, and Aristotle is a realist yet he does not deny the ideal or oppose concepts of reality. Indeed, ideas are not opposed to the world, but they are realized in it as the essence of things cannot be detached from knowing how to explore them. Plato considers ideas in the form of entities distinguished from phenomena that form an original reality, while he strives to rise above nature and bases the core of his views on the supersensible matter (Zeyl 52). For Plato, knowledge of the world consists of penetrating into the idea that determines every individual thing. When a person is able to understand and know that this is a particularly beautiful thing, he or she will know the beauty of many things. Understanding the very essence of a beautiful material body, a person will understand ideas, namely, their meaning.

Reflective Engagement

In my point of view, Aristotles knowing how reflects the essence of moral knowledge. It should be emphasized that Aristotle considers true knowledge to be different from the common attitudes of the majority of people. While he precisely specifies the distinction between practical life and knowledge, this theorist creates close relationships between philosophy and experienced knowledge. Thus, philosophy is divided by Aristotle into theoretical and practical. The task of theoretical philosophy, in his view, is, to sum up, the experience data under the unity of the concept and to derive from the general truths particular issues (Hughes 87). Aristotle never claimed that matter is primary in relation to the idea as he has plenty of statements in the opposite sense. Nevertheless, the main tendency coincides with positivism: Aristotle, in contrast to Plato, is interested not so much in the inner essence of being but in the fundamental principle of the world as such in the interrelationship of various things and concepts with each other. Likewise, positivists, he does not strive in-depth yet decomposes knowledge into parts.

The above approach seems to fit the concept of moral knowledge the best, which can be understood as beliefs and expressions shaping ones attitude towards the objective reality. Aristotle recognizes the reality of the world of phenomena. All his polemic against Platos philosophy is based on the fact that ideas that are in a smart place outside of reality do not explain things or fill them, but only double and repeat them. In fact, ideas as living forces may be defined by every movement, development, and life in general, as can be observed in Aristotles philosophy. Taking into account the fact that the views of the above philosopher are associated with the detailed exploration of the concepts that are also known as ideas, it becomes evident that this approach provides more opportunities to ensure moral knowledge. Thus, it becomes evident that knowledge can be rejected, verified, and reconsidered in terms of actions led by knowing how and contributing to moral knowledge.

Works Cited

Fridland, Ellen. KnowingHow: Problems and Considerations. European Journal of Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 3, 2015, pp. 703-727.

Hughes, Gerard. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle on Ethics. Routledge, 2013.

Ross, David W. Nichomachean Ethics. Aristotle. Kitchener, 1999.

Zeyl, Donald J. Plato. Gorgias. Hackett, 1987.

Plato

Plato was one of the first philosophers to discuss the importance of the way in which a message is presented. Plato developed his method of coming to truth, and he called it dialectics. Dialectics is a process of coming to truth in which two opposing sides, thesis and antithesis, are presented by two people in the form of argumentation.

Every person states their opinion and supports it with arguments. In the end of a dialogue or a debate, the truth is supposed to emerge from the clash of the two opinions, and the defeated one is morally obliged to accept the force of a better argument.

In this process, logic or reason is crucial. Plato believed that each of the persons in a debate has to obey logic, and can examine the logic of the opponents argumentation, and if any contradictions or fallacies are found, they can reveal them, thereby winning the argument.

Since reason is very important to Plato, he strongly opposed the use of any other rhetorical devices. He claimed that appeal to emotion in an argument is not only wrong but dangerous. For that reason, he is known for saying that poets have no place in an Ideal state.

Aristotle

Aristotle realizes Platos idea of rhetoric expressed in Phedre. This idea, for Aristotle, still corresponds to dialectics. Which means that persuasion has to have its foundation in logic. However, there is a difference between rhetoric and pure dialectics in that the former is concerned with style and the latter with the truth. In Aristotles works, the two are not mutually exclusive but complementary.

The differences and similarities between rhetoric and dialectics open up the problem of language and thought. Plato and Aristotle solve this problem favoring thought. They claim that thought can always find a word through which logos and truth will speak.

In that light, language has to emancipate itself from myth, and be subordinated to logos. Aristotle, however, finds that this task is impossible; language has an inseparable mythic element to it. In speech, this mythic component gives strength to what is said.

In the end, he claims that there is no separation of argumentation and style, and a person has to incorporate style into the delivery of a message. It is, nonetheless, crucial to respect the logos, without which any sort of style is vacuous.

Dante

Dante was an Italian poet, who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The period in which he lived is important because it is the period of renaissance and the rebirth of Ancient Greek ideas.

In his view on rhetoric, Dante is closer to Aristotle, he believes that wisdom without rhetoric and eloquence is worth little, but eloquence without wisdom is worse. It is crucial to utilize all the potentials of language as a means to deliver the truth to the masses.

In this immense potential of language to appeal to human emotions, Dante recognized a real threat and danger. For that reason, he found a place in his Inferno for those who use language to take advantage of people. That place was in the eighth circle, alongside thieves and falsifiers.

He also placed poets like Horace and Ovid in this circle, and admitted that they are his likes. One can find the influence of Plato in these claims. From this ambivalence, it is evident that he was struggling with the problem of language and thought just like his great masters Plato and Aristotle.

The philosophical concept of being as being is concerned with the notion of existence, more specifically, that of the thing in and of itself. Regarding a person, for example, this would mean that they are not placed in a context of relationships or within the society, but their inherent person-ness. It is a crucial notion that lies at the root of metaphysics. This paper is concerned with the perspectives of St. Thomas of Aquinas and the Greek philosopher Aristotle on the concept mentioned above.

Essence and Existence according to Aquinas

In Thomistic philosophy, essence and existence are the two principles that explain the being of everything. Essence is a formal principle, an abstract concept that denotes the extent of our knowledge about a thing. For example, humanity is the essence of a human being. However, knowing what a thing is, is not enough to fully comprehend that it exists; the philosophers knowledge of the features and attributes of the mythical bird phoenix does not necessarily mean that it exists in reality. For Aquinas, it is evident that the act of existing is other than essence or quiddity (Magee 2013, par. 2). The word quiddity comes from the Latin quid, meaning the question what?

Esse and God

The activity of being, thus, is called existence, or esse, from the Latin verb to be. Things that exist in reality exercise their act of existence, actualizing potency just as the form actualizes the matter. Therefore, esse actualizes the potency of a things essence. These two principles are distinct yet inseparable in real beings. Both of them are needed for all existing individual things, except God, to exercise their being. According to Aquinas, intelligence is form and an act of existing, and& it has its act of existing from the First Being which is (simply) existence only; and this is the First Cause, God (Magee 2013, par. 5).

However, humans cannot know what God is, but only what God is not, and how God is not, meaning the qualities God does not possess. For example, God is not limited, not composite and does not lack anything in any way. Therefore, Aquinas sees God as the ultimate Being, the Cause of all things, and sees humans as created in his image, and the question of proving the existence of God is always bound up with the question of how, and to what extent, we can know God at all (Magee 2015, par. 2). The Greek philosopher Aristotle, a student of Plato, holds reasonably different views as corresponding to his era. He proposes the existence of a single, imperishable, eternal substance, the prime mover. He argues that this is not a supreme being, but a universal intellect.

Substance and Accidents

Substance and accidents are other intrinsic principles of being as being; the concept of the primacy of substance is crucial to the study of metaphysics. Accidents, thus, can be defined as what exists in and is said of another thing, for example, a particular notion of quality, such as a color or shape. Substance, then, is what does not exist in and cannot be said of another thing, a negative criterion. A tree or a flower exist in their own right, thus the primary substance is not predicated of anything else, whereas other things are predicated of it (Aristotles Metaphysics). Accidents are the changes that substances undergo, though they do not directly modify the kind of a particular substance. Moreover, one cannot find an accident apart from the substance. According to Kennys understanding of the philosophy of Aquinas, only substances, strictly speaking, can have essences; accidents do so only in a limited sense (7).

Per the two basic meanings of substance, it is either the essence of a thing, the so-called second substance, or that thing is a subject, the first substance. Thirdly, the substance can be the universal or genus; the first substance is also known as the substrate. Cohen, elaborating on Aristotles notions, posits that the dependence of secondary substances on primary substances is immediate (235). A substance cannot be further divided, but accidents are divided into nine categories: quantity, quality, relation, action, passion, time, place, disposition, raiment. The three kinds of substances priority over accidents are: logical, causal and ontological. Moreover, as stated by Mitchell, Aristotle posits that physics is not the ultimate discipline in the study of beings, as two types of substances go beyond the domain of Physics: the immobile mover of the heavens and the active intellect (403).

Potency and Act

Potency and act are trans-categorial modes of being that are studied by metaphysics. As to the problem of movement, a being that moves is in potency, with the movement being an imperfect act while it hasnt yet come to its end. Speaking of composition, a human soul as an act is distinct from movement, as it is not imperfect and has life in potency. Elaborating on Aristotles ideas, Mitchell concludes that The matter and form of a substance are the substance itself considered respectively in potency and in act (403). It is the moving cause that makes the substance pass from potency to act. The notions of potency and act, thus, can be used to explain the relationships between essence and existence, substance and accidents, and matter and form as concerning the metaphysical structure of reality. The distinction between act and potency can be best explained by analogy, for example, act is to potency just as somebody who is awake is to someone who is asleep, or as somebody who is running is to someone possessing the ability to run. Therefore, it is potency that limits act. The acts priority over potency can be logical, ontological and causal as well. According to Aristotle, potency is a fundamental meaning of being, present in all the categories (Mitchell 403).

Matter and Form

Further on the subject of matter and form, substantial individuals are seen as compounds of the former and the latter. Matter and form, and the compounds thereof may be considered subjects. As to the question of substance, it cannot be said that the substance of a thing is the matter of which the thing is composed, being devoid of any form. A notion of prime matter is then rejected, substance must be separate and able to exist independently. Thus, the matter could exist independently of it, such as, for example, wood existing both before and after it is made to serve as furniture. However, it wouldnt be a definite, determinate individual, but a certain quality, an aforementioned accident.

Aristotle on Essence

As to the notion of essence as a characteristic of being, Aristotle links it to the notions of definition and predication. But, as one defines things, not words, the definition of a tree, for example, would inform us of the essence of it, meaning, that it is to be a tree, not what the word tree means. One could see certain inconsistencies with the theory, as, if substance is form, not matter, and form is universal, but it is presumed that no universal is substance. Viewing each substance as one and the same with its essence, it is possible to infer the existence of a universal, substantial form that is that essence itself. Aristotle views substance as a principle and cause of being, distinguishing four different causes: material, formal, efficient and final.

Conclusion

Metaphysics as a science is directly concerned with the notion of being as being, the thing in itself and the nature of its existence. The philosophy of Aquinas elaborates on the notions of essence and existence as the two fundamental principles used to explain being. Existence actualizes the potency of the essence. Aristotle, on the other hand, views substance as one and the same with essence, and potency is a fundamental meaning of being. Substance and accidents, as other principles of being, denote what the thing is, and certain qualities it is said to have, respectively. Humanity is the essence of a person as a being in itself. Aquinas proves the existence of God as a supreme being and states that humans are created in its image, a theosophical point of view. Aristotle is concerned with the universal moving force; his notions are not based on faith, but on further developing the philosophy of Plato. He applies the laws of physics to the matter, however, finding that certain notions, such as the force above and the human intellect cannot be explained using these laws only. However, he rejects the notion of prime matter, as matter cannot constitute the substance of being.

Works Cited

Aristotles Metaphysics.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2015, Web.

Cohen, Marc S. Accidental Beings in Aristotles Ontology. Reason and Analysis in Ancient Greek Philosophy: Essays in Honor of David Keyt, edited by Georgios Anagnostopoulos & Fred Miller Jr, Springer Netherlands, 2013, 231-242.

Kenny, Anthony. Aquinas on Being. Clarendon Press, 2002.

Magee, Joseph M. On Being and Essence, Ch. 4 (excerpt).Thomistic Philosophy Page. 2013, Web.

Magee, Joseph M. Aquinas on Gods Existence. Thomistic Philosophy Page. 2015, Web.

Mitchell, Jason A. From Aristotles Four Causes to Aquinas Ultimate Causes of Being: Modern Interpretations. Alpha Omega, vol. 16, no.3, 2014, pp. 399-414, Web.

Introduction

Aristotle (384-322), the great master of philosophy, has been one of the prominent exponents of the concept of Time and Motion. He is considered one of the first philosophers to deal with the concepts of time and notion and the exposition that he develops has several characteristics of its own. Among the many contributions to these areas of philosophy, he has a great perception of the nature of Time. Aristotle is also significant a philosopher in that he relates the concepts of Time and Notion. The most significant characteristics of all these ideas is that Aristotle ensures the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent. It is the core of all his contributions towards these concepts. Therefore, it is most valuable to have and understanding of the various ideas relating to the nature of Time. It is also pertinent that the concept of Time is comprehended in relation to the concept of Motion. The ultimate aim of any understanding regarding the concepts of Time and Motion is to find how and why Aristotle perceived Time and Motion to be mutually dependent on each other, although they are different concepts. Such a comprehension of the concepts of Time and Motion will definitely enhance ones perceptions of these pertinent concepts. In this paper, an attempt is carried out to know how Aristotle ensures the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent.

Aristotles seminal work Physics deals with the underlying principles that are associated with the physical world. He deals with concepts like matter, form, nature, change, motion etc, and shows how the concept of change and motion are related to the concept of time. For him, nature operates as a principle of motion and change. He comes to understand that the infinite does not have an actual existence; on the other hand its existence is quite potential. Similarly, the concept of time is not a permanent actuality; instead it is in a process of coming to be. For him, the place of a thing is not subjected to motion or change and so he concludes that that the innermost motional boundary of what contains is place. After dealing with the concept of place, Aristotle then moves towards the concept of time. According to Aristotle, time is not movement altogether; however, one cannot perceive time independent of movement. In fact, he perceives time as the measure of motion and states that Time is the numeration of continuous movement (Physics, Book 4, 223b: 1).

In the fourth book on Physics, Aristotle deals in length with the notion of Time. First of all, he tells about the difficulties connected with it& First does it belong to the class of things that exist or of things that do not exist? Then secondly, what is its nature? To start then: the following considerations would make one suspect that it either does not exist or barely, and in an obscure way. One part of it has been and is not, while the other is going to be and is not yet&. One would naturally suppose that what is made up of things which do not exist could have no reality. Further, if a divisible thing is to exist, it is necessary that, when it exists, all or some of its parts must exist. But of time some parts have been, while others have to be, and no part of it is, though it is divisible. For what is now is not a part: a part is a measure of the whole, which must be made of parts. Time, on the other hand, is not held to be made up of nows. Again, the now which seems to bound the past and the future  does it always remain one and the same or is it always other and other? It is hard to say. (217b 29  218a 10).

It is significant to note that, according to Aristotle, now is not a separate part of time. It is, on the other hand, a very fugitive element and is difficult to comprehend. He remarks that the now in the one sense is the same, in another it is not the same. (219b 12f) it is difficult to comprehend the concept. The element now continuously moves and therefore it cannot ever be the same as the concept of now exists now only, i.e. it exists at the present moment alone, not earlier or later. As, on the other hand, it is the now that moves or changes, we can find something identical that shifts. Time& also is both made continuous by the now and divided at it (220a 4f) It may be well concluded that now is a boundary which divides and does not divide, but unites past and future. The conclusion for Aristotle is evident: if we conceive time as a real thing, as an ontological item, we cannot escape absurdities. (p 45, Jurgen Hengelbroke, Some Reflections on Aristotles notion of time in an intercultural perspective in Time and Temporality in Intercultural Perspective, By Douwe Tiemersma, Henk Oosterling, published by Rodopi, 1996).

In this attempt of understanding the concepts of Time and Notion, it may be very well maintained that Aristotle deals in detail with the various significant concepts of that relate to nature. His philosophy of nature concludes that nothing that exists in nature is without its end and function, and everything has its purpose. We can find everywhere the evidences of design and rational plan. Therefore, it is important to find the exact meanings of the concepts such as time and notion. No doctrine of physics can ignore the fundamental notions of motion, space, and time. Motion is the passage of matter into form, and it is of four kinds: (1) motion which affects the substance of a thing, particularly its beginning and its ending; (2) motion which brings about changes in quality; (3) motion which brings about changes in quantity, by increasing it and decreasing it; and (4) motion which brings about locomotion, or change of place. Of these the last is the most fundamental and important. (Aristotle (384-322 BCE): General Introduction).

We can very well understand that Aristotle declines the definition of space as the invalid. It is because empty space cannot be possible. This is also a reason why he opposes the ideas of Plato and the Pythagoreans who maintain that all the elements of the universe are composed of geometrical figures. Aristotle understands space as the limit of the surrounding body towards what is surrounded. In this background, it is important to know what Time is and how Aristotle defines it. Time is defined as the measure of motion in regard to what is earlier and later. It thus depends for its existence upon motion. If there were no change in the universe, there would be no time. Since it is the measuring or counting of motion, it also depends for its existence on a counting mind. If there were no mind to count, there could be no time. As to the infinite divisibility of space and time, and the paradoxes proposed by Zeno, Aristotle argues that space and time are potentially divisible ad infinitum, but are not actually so divided. (Aristotle (384-322 BCE): General Introduction).Therefore, it is important to undertake an analysis of the concepts of Time and Motion in order to have a clear idea about the relationship between these concepts as maintained by Aristotle. It is significant in the comprehension of the contribution of Aristotle to the philosophy of nature in general.

The Nature of Time

In an analysis of the nature of Time, it is most relevant to remember that Aristotle was the first of the thinkers to provide a central analysis of the nature of time. He also makes his contribution significant by the most pertinent arguments he puts forward. Whereas Plato considers time on the basis of the motion of the universe, Aristotle treats Time first on the smallest scale and very systematically and gradually comes to the universal level of Time. He seems to be more concerned on the understanding of the nature of Time. The nature of Time, according to Aristotle, relates to the principles of Time, i.e. the principles of change and motion. Therefore, the relation between time and change or motion is the central of the several concerns relating to the concept of time. First Aristotle deals with the question whether and in what sense time exists and then he goes on to treat the nature of Time. The nature of Time can very well be understood in relation to the concept of Motion. He draws the ideas of his ancestors and makes his complete ideas of Time and Motion.

It is remarkable to note that there are two significant conceptions regarding the nature of Time that Aristotle mentions. First is Platos opinion that time is movement of the universe and the second that time is the sphere itself which is attributed to Pythagoras. It is clear that Aristotle was not satisfied with these opinions. If time is defined as movement itself or revolution of the universe, there is again a logical absurdity: in this case a part of the revolution is also time in certain sense (because time is defined as revolution), but on the other hand this part is not the revolution itself. So if time was revolution itself, a part of it cannot be time simultaneously. Time can also not be the sphere of sky itself. (p 45, Jurgen Hengelbroke) It is because there is a possibility for several spheres of skies and the movement of any of them equally would be time, so that there would be many times at the same time. (218b 1-5).

The Notion of Time and Motion

It may be noted that Aristotle original writings on the nature of time presented in his Physics book four provides a reasonable understanding of time. The importance of the writings of Aristotle is that they provide authoritative explanation to what time is and what the nature of time is. The relation between time and motion is very well established by Aristotle. Instead of viewing both time and motion as a thing or as only seeming to be a thing, it sees motion as a real thing and time as a measure of motion. The crucial aspect of this is that time does not exist independently of motion, but instead is in the mind. However, it isnt completely subjective, as the motion is real, and the measures (or durations) of time are based on the real measures of motion&. While the motion is real, time cannot exist apart from a mind to measure the motion. A mind organizes the motion and compares it to other objects in motion. The measure is in a logical order though& A better way of understanding this is to understand what Aristotle meant in comparing first intentions and second intentions. A first intention would be the actual place of the earth and the actual motion of the earth. A second intention is the mind measuring the position and motion of the earth and attaching a number to it. The second intention is based on the real position of the earth, but the measure of it (labeling it a year) is partly real and partly logical (as it is a number in a series). (Is There Any Viability to Aristotles Theory of Time?)

In an analysis of the relation between time and motion it is important that the concept of Time as perceived by Aristotle is understood very cleverly. In this attempt, there have been various studies that concentrate on the concept of Time as Aristotle discusses it. One prominent explanation of the concept of Time perceived by Aristotle is Ursula Coopes Time for Aristotle, which is a clear and succinct study of an exceedingly difficult section of Aristotles Physics: where he discusses on the concept of time. The concept of change, as explained by Coope, helps Aristotle in explaining the pertinent concept of time. Thus, Aristotle conceives of the natural world as the realm of change: everything that is natural is subject to change (change is here to be understood in its broader sense, including qualitative and quantitative change as well as change in place). Although Aristotle thinks that change and time are intimately related, he explains time in terms of change and not vice versa. He obviously thinks that the notion of change is more fundamental in his explanatory project. This helps us to understand why Aristotles first and overriding concern in the Physics is to secure a general account of change; that is, an account that can apply to change in all its manifestations. This account makes no reference, implicit or explicit, to time. Only when this account is firmly in place does Aristotle develop a number of notions essential for his philosophy of nature, including that of time. (Time for Aristotle, Ursula Coope, Reviewed by Andrea Falcon). There, it is clear that the concept of Time is very much related to that of change. Here, Times relation with Notion comes to be applied.

To understand Time, it is important to know what Motion is. It is because Aristotle defines Time in relation to Motion. According to Aristotle, time is number of motion in respect of the before and after (IV. II 219 b2). I take this to mean that time is the quantity which motion exhibits in the dimension marked out by prediction of before and after. The definition presupposes the existence of motion, and Aristotle repeatedly marks the close relation between time and motion. Moreover, the relation seems to be one of ontological dependence: That time is neither motion nor independent of [literally: without] motion, is clear (IV. II, 219a 1-2). If, then, time is everlasting, as Aristotle maintains, he must be committed to having motion be everlasting. (p 46, Physics By Aristotle, Daniel W. Graham, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).

It is important to have a thorough understanding of Aristotles views on motion to know better how he associates time with motion. Ursula Coope believes that, for Aristotle the notion of change is more fundamental in his explanatory project.

Aristotle believes that only change from subject to subject is motion, and there are three kinds of change: qualitative, quantitative, and local. In respect to substance, there is no motion, because substance has no contrary among things that are.(Frederick Sontag). In Book VII of Physics, he makes it clear that there should be something that causes movement to everything that exists in motion and he terms that something as the Unmoved, Prime or First Mover. The concept of time is closely related to motion and this is aptly suggested by Frederick Sontag when he states: It is clear that there never was a time when motion did not exist and that the time will never come when motion will not be present. There must be three things: the moved, the movement, and the instrument of motion(Physics. Essay by: Frederick Sontag. World Philosophers and Their Works, 2000. (Work Analysis). The focus of Aristotle here is to prove that there always was motion in the past and it will be continued in the future throughout all time, whether it is caused by an eternal Unmoved movement or by the agent itself that is in motion. Aristotle realized that motion can be understood by seeing how the location of an object changed. And that one could talk about one object moving faster than another by comparing how much the location of each changed in some interval of time. (Space and Time according to Aristotle).

Aristotles Notion of Time and Motion: How these different concepts mutually depend on each other

One of the most significant factors to be noted in an analysis of the concepts of Time and Notion is that Aristotle has very well ensures the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent. It means that Aristotle perceived Time and Motion to be mutually dependent on each other, although they are different concepts. We have been dealing with the nature of Time as perceived by Aristotle as well as the relation between Time and Motion. These discussions lead to the pertinent question of how and why Aristotle perceived Time and Motion to be mutually dependent on each other, although they are different concepts. Therefore, it is much significant to deal with these notions as mutually depending on each other while they are different concepts.

Aristotle conceives time as a divisible entity. For him, one part of it has been and is not, while the other is going to be and is not yet (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 10, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye). On the other hand, he does not consider the now as part of time or rather he believes that time is not made up of nows. For him, no determinate divisible thing has a single termination and the now is a termination, and it is possible to cut off a determinate time.( Physics. Book IV, Chapter 10, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye). Thus, he introduces the concept of motion or movement by stating clearly that the nows depict time only when they are conceived in relation to a prior now or a future now. He makes the idea clearer by stating that when ones state of mind remains stagnant and does not change at all, one does not realize that time has elapsed. Another instance provided by the author to state his argument is that of a man sitting in a dark room without any movements. Such a person feels that time has elapsed obviously because some movements take place in his mind. According to him, one can apprehend time only when it is associated with motion: and it is only when we have perceived before and after in motion that we say that time has elapsed (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye). Thus, only when the mind recognizes that the nows are two, one before and one after, one feels that time has passed. Aristotle makes clear the relationship between time and motion when he states: When, therefore, we perceive the now one, and neither as before and after in a motion nor as an identity but in relation to a before and an after, no time is thought to have elapsed, because there has been no motion either (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye). Then he goes on to establish his theory that time is the number of motion in respect of before and after and that the now measures time, in so far as time involves the before and after. (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).

Aristotle also distinguishes between time and motion. Motion or movement takes place only in those objects that change whereas time is present everywhere and with all things. Similarly, motion can be faster or slower whereas time is not. In fact, it is time that determines whether the movement is faster or slower. Thus, time is not movement but no time elapses without movement. According to Ursula Coope, Aristotle assumed that change is something dependent on time, since he believes that there is no change without time (Andrea Falcon). Aristotle then goes on to enumerate that time is a kind of number as it is counted and states that just as motion is a perpetual succession, so also is time (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).

Aristotle is of the opinion that both time and motion define each other as one can measure the movement by time and vice versa. Both of them are continuous and divisible. Aristotle also distinguishes the concept of time with the concept of in time. According to him just as time is the measure of all motion, all rests are also done in time which indirectly means that all rest also can be measured by time. He substantiates his argument by stating that only those subjects that are in motion can be in rest too. He makes the idea clearer when he concludes that all things that exist are in time and even those subjects that once existed are in time and could be measured by time. Ursula Coope echoes this idea when she says: Aristotle thinks that only the things that come into existence and go out of existence are, strictly speaking, in time. These things are in time because there is a time before they come into existence and there is a time after they go out of existence. Since they last for a finite length of time, this length of time is measurable (Andrea Falcon). For example when one speaks of Homer who once was, he is referring to those prior nows that are very much in time. All things come into being, perish, flourish, think, act and even forget in time.

Thus, for Aristotle, the now acts as a link of time which connects the past and the future time and at the same time it acts as the limit of time. It could be the beginning or the end of different times- the end of that which is past and the beginning of that which is to come (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 13, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).. Aristotle then elaborately discusses the various meanings in which the now can be understood. According to him, when some one uses expressions like at some time, lately, presently, long ago, suddenly etc, he/she is obviously referring to the now either in the past or future.

In the 14^th chapter of Book IV, Aristotle concludes that we say before and after with reference to the distance from the now, and the now is the boundary of the past and future (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 14, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye), and because the nows are in time everything in the past and future will also be in time. Aristotle rightly ends his discussion on time by referring to times relationship with the soul. The importance of time is under question if there existed no souls and it is evident that each of the actions of the soul are time bound. Referring to soul, Aristotle says that human life forms a circle where everyone comes into being and there is a circular movement until one passes away. This is very well suggested by Andrea Falcon when he states, time is dependent upon a mind which can count (I should say a soul which can count). For Aristotle the dependence of time upon the mind (the soul) implies that there would be no time without beings that are able to count.

The relation between Time and Motion as Aristotle conceived it needs to be explained clearly. One of the best possible ways for this is to begin this exploration from the concept of now that Aristotle proposed. Daniel W. Graham gives a very remarkable explanation to this relation between Time and Motion which Aristotle explained in his Physics. He summarizes the main arguments of Aristotle as follows:

1. The existence of the now is a necessary condition for the existence of time (from Bk. IV).
2. The now intermediate between past and future.
3. Thus, it is the end of the past and the beginning of the future.
4. Thus, there is time before now (namely, the past) and after now (the future).
5. For any arbitrary moment of time, whether past or future, the point four holds true.
6. Thus, there is no beginning or end of time.
7. But there is time if and only if there is motion.
8. Thus, motion is everlasting. (pp 47- 48, Physics By Aristotle, Daniel W. Graham, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).

This is a clear explanation of what is true about the concepts of Time and Motion. The fifth conclusion is arrived at by supposing that what Aristotle considers moment is not that happens to be present. It is assumed that what he maintains is that the same applies to any arbitrary moment of time. From this conclusion, the fifth point is arrived at. To further explain these, the first argument expresses that time is a continuum and its dimensionless cross sections are nows. The idea of now needs to be understood as a limit of Time and they mutually entail each other. The second argument is included in the fourth book of Physics and its explication and some addition of detail is found in the third argument.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it may be very well maintained that Aristotle has been very effective in making the relation between the concepts of Time and Motion. The nature of Time as perceived by Aristotle relates to the concepts of change and motion. The concept of Motion is very much integral to a clear understanding of the concept of Time. These are, of course, different concepts. However, Aristotle is successful in maintaining that there is a clear relation between the concepts of Time and Motion. In other words, Aristotle has been very effective in ensuring the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent.

Work Cited

Physics Essay by: Frederick Sontag. World Philosophers and Their Works, 2000. (Work Analysis).

Ursula Coope, Time for Aristotle, Oxford University Press, 2005. Reviewed by Andrea Falcon, Concordia University. Nortre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2004. Web.

Physics By Aristotle. Translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye. Book IV. Web.

Space and Time according to Aristotle. By Roberto B. Salgado, Syracuse University, 1995. Web.

Jurgen Hengelbroke, Some Reflections on Aristotles notion of time in an intercultural perspective in Time and Temporality in Intercultural Perspective, By Douwe Tiemersma, Henk Oosterling, published by Rodopi, 1996.

Is There Any Viability to Aristotles Theory of Time? Web. Physics By Aristotle, Daniel W. Graham, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.

Introduction

There is a constant need to consider various arguments and facts to resolve challenges appearing in life. Moral judgments can be associated with practical or theoretical knowledge in the area of interest. This paper aims to explore the difference between the mentioned concepts. Happiness or good comes from a contemplative life that was defined by Aristotle as the one caused by divine inspiration, ensures the selection of the best decision, and allows achieving the highest virtue of pleasure.

Examining Aristotles Arguments

Aristotle stated that the pivotal goal of a man is to recess from his or her mind and become more conscious. Henry and Nielsen claim that this was regarded by the philosopher as the highest form of human activity and one of the components of divine inspiration, which is the first argument (50). It seems that the latter should be understood as the prerequisite of happiness since those who balanced their consciousness and environment are able to speculate. In this connection, practical knowledge refers to social life and specific actions, while theoretical knowledge guides them based on intellectual virtues.

The second argument that should be discussed in Aristotles view of the idea of pleasure as the way to meet the key function of a person. There are two types of pleasure: good pleasure is beneficial to people, while bad pleasure cannot be sufficient to them since it requires always fulfilling it (Henry and Nielsen 77). According to the mentioned philosopher, practical knowledge in the form of action but not contemplation is the object of practical knowledge. Due to the fact that a person is not capable of being continuously active without any rest, practical knowledge does not provide true happiness (Prior 175). Therefore, theoretical wisdom, which is expressed in the contemplative nature of life in this case, provides virtue that, in combination with activity, is a more viable way to accomplish happiness.

Reasoning is the greatest virtue of a conscious person, as it can be suggested from Aristotles statements. Prior assumes that the greatest pleasure, in its turn, is fulfilling the function of a human being, and it is closely related to happiness (182). Since action offers only timely joy, the contemplation may provide longer pondering over ones life. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that contemplation is not the highest virtue, yet it a reliable means of sustainable self-sufficiency and consciousness.

On the contrary to the discussed arguments, one can claim that practical knowledge is characteristic of the issues learned from the very childhood, while theoretical knowledge is realized sooner in ones adolescence or adult periods. It seems that Aristotle perceived virtues as the ones granted by nature and developed by the family (Henry and Nielsen 77). In case a child was not taught to contemplate, it may be quite difficult to do apply theoretical wisdom in his or her adulthood. It is possible to suggest that practical knowledge is often the only way to experience happiness. In particular, such people would presumably have problems with the highest pleasure and consciousness, trying to achieve it from actions. Answering this objection, one may state that any person can improve and learn even though it was not developed in childhood.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Aristotle distinguished between theoretical and practical knowledge with regard to pleasure and happiness. Due to its ability to offer the greatest virtue, fulfill the function of a person, and consciousness based on divine inspiration, one should agree that theoretical knowledge is the key to achieve genuine happiness. Leading the contemplative life allows for choosing the best solution possible from a range of options.

Works Cited

Henry, Devin, and Karen Margrethe Nielsen. Bridging the Gap Between Aristotles Science and Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Prior, William J. Virtue and Knowledge: An Introduction to Ancient Greek Ethics. Routledge, 2016.

Introduction

Although Buddha was a religious philosopher, his philosophy of The Middle Way shows several similarities with Aristotles theory of virtue and moderation. Noteworthy, Aristotle was a philosopher with little links to religion. The purpose of this paper is to review each of the two theories and develop a comparison between them.

Aristotles virtue and moderation ethics

Aristotle argues that an individual develops partly from his or her upbringing and partly from the habit adapted in action. Human character partly comes from habit. Aristotle likens human character to such things as skills, which are obtained from the interaction with the environment. Each character displayed by humans can be excellent or deficient. Being on the extremes of excess or deficiency causes an individual to go beyond the norm.

Buddhas Middle Way

The middle way, as described by Siddhartha Gautama, is a character of the middle path or central way through which humans archive liberation. Buddha uses this term in reference to the noble pathway or middle way that helps people achieve Nirvana. This term is in contrast to the paths of extremities described by eternalism and annihilationism that may lead humans out of the virtue. According to Buddha, this path passes between the extremities and uses wisdom. In addition, Buddha says that the extremities of sensual indulgence and self-mortification are not good because they are vices in nature and lead humans astray because they are not based on the light of wisdom.

Comparison

The two theories advocate for a middle position between tow edges of extremities. They argue that a person can remain ethical (in Aristotles theory) and righteous (in Buddhas advice) if they choose between the extremities of good and evil. Being too good or too bad is not only wrong, but leads to the wrong state.

Conclusion

The two theories indicate that a morally right person (In Aristotles theory) and a righteous person (In Buddhas theory) should not go to the extremes.

Introduction

Ancient philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Petrarch were fundamental in shaping the theory and practice of education in the world. Their ideas are still evident in the views of those who are in charge of the education system. To begin with, Plato believed that acquisition of knowledge was the way to being virtuous in life but he tended to differ with philosophers like Aristotle stating that education to be acquired from the natural world was limited and could change from time to time.

The ideas of Plato with regard to education mainly focused on the overall purpose of education which he said should be geared towards the good. That person should not only focus on the benefits and pleasures of being educated by they should be familiar with the form of the good that results from education.

Main body

Plato was significant in pointing out some aspects and trends in leadership. He noted degeneration in leadership due to what he believed to be a lack of separation between self-interest and political power. Plato believed the values of democracy had been misused by the leaders because they have taken the interests of the masses for granted. Those leaders are in their positions just to satisfy their selfish needs. He asserted that political power is enticing and has attracted people who do not have the good leadership qualities

He was also not in agreement with sophistic views with regard to the attainment of human happiness. He argued that the sophistic doctrines irrationality should not be allowed to overtake reason. Aristotle argued that man alone lives by and is guided by reason throughout. That is why each individual is born unique with important characteristics like reason and rationality that make him different from the beasts.

Plato spoke against the sophists prominence that attainment of worldly success is the only way to happiness. He believed that the route to happiness in life is by the man taking morality to be his first priority so as to achieve happiness. He believed that making knowledge subjective and making the truth relative negatively impacts morality because they undermine it. To him, morality should have a base that is objective and must be conjoined with self-interest because it leads to the betterment of an individual and not a group.

According to him an average man who does not understand why rules concerning morality should be followed under any situation is likely to be guided by self-interest. Aristotle believed that education should aim at self-actualization in man. That happiness is the most significant thing everybody who seeks education aims at realizing as a good. For Aristotle, a happy must has to be virtuous and virtue does not come up as a result of the natural phenomenon but it is through education that a person will acquire virtues.

According to Aristotle true knowledge is brought about by the use of senses. For instance, he said that senses give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars(Aristotle) On the other hand Plato held the opinion that inherent knowledge of separate materials existing on their own can be said to be true because intrinsic knowledge does not require interaction with the external environment so as to find meaning.

Any one forms the true opinion of anything without rational explanation, you may say that his mind is truly exercised, but has no knowledge.(Republic 454)

In his theories, he comes up with two important aspects of education. There is education through reason and education through habit. Through habit, he means that education is not acquired through mere repetition kind of training. This is also relevant as far as moral education is concerned.

He highlights that for the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g. men become builders by building and lyre-players by playing the lyre.(Republic 454)

He claims that learning in human beings can only be achieved through induction and demonstration processes, whereby induction is formed on the basis of universal principles while the demonstration is based on the principle of a common phenomenon or case.

Aristotles learning is pedagogic in the sense that it comes from pre-existing knowledge.

That his teaching starts from understanding the examples for one to know the causes thus it is scientific. His theory on education still holds its relevance today because they still occupy a special and significant place in philosophy. AS it can be noted his ideas are still very common with those people who are in charge of education today. Petrarch was significant in asserting the importance of studying rhetoric and the notion of language as an important tool for informing both the individual and society. He put much emphasis on human virtue than on luck. He was significant in using theology to examine and try to find an explanation for the conflict between Plutonic and Aristotelian thoughts.

In some of his writings like on his own ignorance, he attacks those who champion Aristotles ideas concerning logic. He says These friends of ours, I have already said, are s captivated by their love of the mere name that they call it a sacrilege to pronounce any opinion that differs from his on any matter (Francesco Petrarch 6 1994)

In conclusion, it is important to note that all three ancient philosophers focused on knowledge acquisition and the very ends of education. They are therefore very significant in influencing education theories and practice because most of their views have been utilized by those who are in charge of education.

References

Francesco Petrarch, Secretum, trans. William H. Draper (reprint, Westport: Hyperion Press, 1994) 6. Web.

Aristotle and Plato were great Greek philosophers and logicians and they were regarded as the most prominent thinkers in ancient times especially in the field of philosophy including the political setting. In comparing the political theories of these great political philosophers the theory has to be examined in depth. As Plato is regarded by many as the pioneer in writing about political history, Aristotle on the other hand is recognized as being the earliest political scientist. These two men were amusingly very great thinkers. And they each held different notions on improving the existing societies in their lifetimes. Platos maim focus was based on a perfect society as he created a benchmark for a society that was utopian as his proposal was an outline of a society in which the problems he thought were existing in the present society would be reduced. He further sought to give a remedy to the afflictions of both the human personality and society. He wanted to achieve a perfect society. Unlike Plato, Aristotle was not concerned with the perfecting act of the society but he rather wanted to improve on the existing society. Instead of producing a layout for a society that was perfect, he suggested that the society itself should make an effort in reaching and attaining the unsurpassed possible system. Aristotle studied in Athens at Platos academy and later on left to carry out philosophical research in Asia. His life looked like it had a lot of influence on his political thought in numerous ways. His travels also and his experiences in diverse political systems prompted him to have an interest in comparative politics. He insensitively criticizes Platos theories on the political scene while still extensively borrowing his values on the same. Politics being a very authoritative science, it is according to Aristotle a prescriptive discipline rather than an inquiry. ¹

He frequently compared the politicians to craftsmen and further explained the production of artifacts in terms of the four main causes which are the material, efficient, formal, and final causes. He then explained the existence of city-states in terms of the four causes whereby the states consisted of the citizens with their natural resources from which the city-state is shaped. The constitution was the recognized cause of the city-state since it helped in the maintenance of order for the inhabitants. He further indicated that established a city-state brought a lot of benefits along with it. He summed up the city-state as a form of a particular population in a given territory and having a constitution that has been fashioned by the lawgiver and is being governed by the politicians who are compared to craftsmen. He clearly understood the fundamental dilemma of politics. Aristotle emphasized that the lawgiver and the politician occupied the constitution and the state wholly and defined a citizen as one who had the right to deliberate or participate in the matters of the judicial office. Aristotle mainly relied on an approach that was deductive and also on the inductive approach which suggested that there was no solid evidence at all that the societies needed a drastic way of reformation as Plato on the other hand had earlier suggested.²

Aristotle believed that society had already obtained the best and all that could be done was to try and improve on the existing society. Platos school of thought consisted of three class systems that were nonhereditary in which were the guardians who consisted of the ruling and the nonruling guardians. The nonrulers were of a higher level in the civil service and the ruling guardians were the policymakers in the society. On the other hand, the soldiers and the auxiliaries were the minority in the civil service as finally the workers were composed of the unskilled laborers, the farmers, and the artisans. It was very important that the rulers who emerged were to belong to the craftsmens class who were spirited in temperaments publicly and skilled in the governments area of arts. The guardians were placed in a position whereby they were regarded as the absolute rulers. Aristotle however disagreed with the idea of a particular class holding political power continuously. He further said that the system excluded men who were very wise and ambitious but were not in the right societal classes thus they could not hold any type of power politically. He further looked upon the system of the ruling class as a political structure that was ill conceived and quoted that the guardians made a sacrifice for their control of power and happiness. The guardians who led a very disciplined life thought that it was necessary imposing the same lifestyle on the society governed by it. Aristotle put a very high moderation value since most people favored it because of its liberal and conservative part. Platos utopia was undefined and was carried extremes such that its requirements could not be fulfilled by any human being. Aristotle believed that Plato was underestimating the human character qualitative change in personality that would take place to achieve its utopia. ³

Plato decided to tell the readers belonging to his republic how the men were to act and what their attitudes would entail in a perfect society. Aristotle on the other hand tried to use the real men in the real world in a fashion that was experimental in foreseeing how and what channels could be used to improve them. Plato and Aristotle both agreed that justice existed objectively which meant that it dictated the belief that good life was to be provided for all people irrespective of their high or low social status. Plato saw law and justice as what would set society guidelines for its behavior. Even though Aristotle emphasized the polis institution neither he nor Plato found it necessary to make a clear distinction between the society and the state thus it became difficult to define polis. The polis was specifically set so that it would allow the participation of the average citizen in politics. This was a contradiction to Platos theory which emphasized a ruling class that was in control of the political power including all the decisions that affected the entire society. The democracy theory which was derived by Aristotle stated that democracy was a pervasive form of government and further clarified that people were to be made sovereign. Plato would never accept the full participation of the public in government political issues as Plato would advocate for the same. By Platos theory, the judgments of the public on their disapproval and approval are not based on knowledge but rather on belief. Plato seemingly thought that if any revolution would take place, it would happen in the palace since that is where power is passed on from one power that holds the power to someone else. On the other hand, Aristotle sees the revolution causes have their origins in either the poor or the rich and further feels that if people were to prevent revolutions then they were not to anticipate them at all. Plato thought that a group of guardians will emerge and break the rules. ⁴

Both Aristotle and Plato had plans and ideas that were well thought out on how a society is to be built and they had a very tremendous impact on the political scenario in the present age. Also, their opinions and the values they held concerning the society differed but the intentions were the same and that is building better ways of life for their current societies and for the ones to be there in the future. In the current political arena, there is the existence of the world in reality as it dates back to many years ago when the great philosopher existed who believed in real and tangible things i.e. Bush thought that the empty barrels in Iraq were filled with chemical weapons. According to Plato what is real is the general idea of things such as the idea of Iraq being a threat to America and also whether Sadaam Hussein had actual and real chemical weapons was less important than the truth in reality whereby the abstract thoughts were the reality. Aristotle on the other hand took a different view and thought that reality could only be measured by what you could touch and see. Following this definition announced to the world that Sadaam had hidden weapons of mass destruction and it is also the same definition that was used by David Kay who set out immediately to find the weapons. Powell and Kay were dismayed by peoples ability to not seeing or touching the weapons of mass destruction. But according to Bush he wasnt in any way going to let anything like Aristotles reality theory distract him from what he believed in Platos theory. In Platos reality threats exist and the world is a very dangerous place and the evidence of our senses must fit the truth when interpreted. On the day Bush launched the war on Iraq he told the entire nation that there was no doubt that Iraq had very lethal weapons of mass destruction according to the information gathered by his government intelligence team. A reporter wanting clarification on the issue of whether the statement he made was false

⁵retrospectively. His reply was based on the fact that the decision he had made to attack Iraq was influenced on the basis on the intelligence survey carried out in relation to war against terrorism. According to the American president every threat had to be looked at carefully and analyzed properly thus reducing the chances of any potential harm to America. In the real sense the attack on Iraq further exposed a new reality which created a change in the context of interpreting any findings from the governments intelligence. Bush had a theory and a fact and the two do not coincide at all and he got rid of the fact and maintained the theory.

References

1. Miller D (1987): The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pg 123-235.
2. Miller D (1987): The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pg 123-235.
3. Miller D (1987): The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pg 123-235.
4. Miller D (1987): The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pg 123-235.
5. Hacker, A. (1961): Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, And Science. New York: Macmillan, pg 56-78.

Introduction

The role of ancient Greek philosophers in shaping the entire world philosophical tradition cannot be underestimated. It is argued that the origin of philosophy as a discipline owes its origin to the contribution of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates contribution to the love of wisdom was manifested by the belief that philosophy was a holy quest- not a game to be taken lightly (James, 2009).

According to James (2009), one example of his effect on philosophy is found in the dialog Euthyphro where he suggests that what is to be considered a good act is not good because gods say it is, but is good because it is useful to us in our efforts to be better and happier people. The premise of this suggestion is that ethics is not about what constitutes the written scriptures, but by taking a keen cognizance on the aspects of life. He advanced that eternal soul contained all knowledge. In this regard, he emphasized one critical aspect of knowledge acquisition by insisting that we unfortunately lose touch with that knowledge at every birth, and so we need to be reminded of what we already know (rather than learning something new) (James, 2009). It is his discussions on the love of knowledge that his most prized student  Plato  reconstructed in the Dialogs.

Main body

Plato on the other hand placed dialectic, ethics, and physics as the three focal points of philosophy. His contribution to the Greek philosophy can be understood from both idealistic and rationalistic perspectives. Plato advanced the love of knowledge based on two perspectives  ontos which refers to the ultimate and permanent reality. The second reality is the phenomena which refer to a manifestation of the ideal reality and in inferior to the ideal reality. According to Boerce (2000), Phenomena are illusions which decay and die, Ideals are unchanging, perfect. Platos contribution to Greek philosophy was based on his analysis between ideal and phenomena.

The connection between the two is that phenomena are available to s through our senses while ideas are available to us through thought (Boerce, 2000). His contribution to Greek philosophy through Christianity is manifested by his identification in the ideal with God and perfect goodness. Within the same line of argument, Plato apples the same principle to human beings by analyzing the link between the body and the soul. Soul includes reason, of course, as well as self-awareness and moral sense and the soul will always choose to do good, if it recognizes what is good (Boerce, 2000).

Conclusion

As a prized student of Plato, Aristotle contributions to Greek philosophy remain fundamental to the advancement of knowledge. Through a combination of science and philosophy, Aristotle was more fascinated with nature. He is the father of modern logic that only differs with todays logic by its symbolic form. In metaphysics, while Plato separates the ever-changing phenomenal world from the true and eternal ideal reality, Aristotle suggests that the ideal is found inside the phenomena, the universals inside the particulars (Boerce, 2000). In Aristotles definition, ideal meant essence and its opposite of this is matter. The four causes that contribute to the movement from formless to complete thing include the material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause (Boerce, 2000). Socrates, Plato and Aristotle contributions to Greek philosophy remain the most fundamental of all contributions to the love of knowledge.

References

Boerce, G. (2000).Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.Web.

James, H.H. (2009). The Ethics of the Greek Philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. New York: BiblioBazaar, LLC.