|
|
XXX |
XXX |
XXX |
|
XXX |
Used the
dialectic method to take an argument to the root issue and proceed from
there (Moore & Bruder, 2005, p. 36).
|
Used the
knowledge of, and appeal to, the forms to get to the fundamental issue. |
Contributed the
concept of logical reasoning through syllogism (Moore & Bruder,
2005, p. 70-71). |
|
XXX |
Used the
dialectic method to acquire knowledge (Moore & Bruder, 2005, p.
35). |
Sensory
perception is not a valid means of acquiring knowledge.
It is through thinking and knowledge of the true
forms that one gains knowledge and can perceive their surroundings. (Moore & Bruder,
2005, p. 42-43). |
Some things can
be intuitively known. For
most things they should be grouped to discover similar qualities as
well as unique qualities. (Moore
& Bruder, 2005, p. 70) |
|
XXX |
NA |
For Plato
“love is meant to be the force that brings all things
together and makes them beautiful” (Moore & Bruder,
2005, p. 44). Love
operates as a force that shows that some knowledge is lacking, and then
the force that pursues that knowledge (Moore & Bruder, 2005, p.
44). |
NA |
|
XXX |
NA |
NA |
Two criteria are
applied. First a
determination is made if the object exists.
Secondly, a determination is made about the object
substance. (Moore
& Bruder, 2005, p. 66-67) |
Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle were similar in their approach to logic and argument in that
they
appealed to the base issue. The
base
issue was different for each philosopher, as was getting to the base
issue; but
the core was getting to the root of the idea and then proceeding from
there. Socrates
added to this through
his grouping multiple base issues to form an argument (Moore
& Bruder, 2005, p. 70-71).
Similar in to their logic and argument
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had a core similarity in their method of
acquiring knowledge. All
three philosophers,
while different in technique, took the idea to its base, or simplest,
form and
built up from there. At
the root Plato
had the form and that was the key element, though multiple forms, or
essences,
could exist in one object (Moore & Bruder, 2005, p. 42-43). Socrates through the use
of the dialectic
method was a method that was a precursor to Aristotle’s
syllogism. Aristotle
expanded upon Socrates’ dialectic
method by combining known items to make a logical argument.
While the textbook only mentions
specifically Plato’s view on love one can make some
similarities with Socrates. With
Socrates dying for his corruption of the
youth and rejection of the gods it ultimately was his idealism, and
philosophy,
that resulted in his death (Moore & Bruder, 2005, p. 36-37). His unwillingness to
compromise his beliefs,
and thereby escape death, reinforced that reason, and living by reason,
were
the chief objects of life. It
was though
strictly adhering to reason and challenging others thoughts that you
give love. The core
similarity between Plato and
Socrates is that love is a force.
For
Socrates this force was reason while for Plato it was knowledge of the
forms.
While the textbook only mentions
specifics on existence some inferences can be made about
Plato’s view of
essence. With the
core of Plato’s
philosophy resting on the basis of the forms, it is the forms that are
used to
define, and judge, the objects in the temporal world.
For Plato as one grows in knowledge of the
forms then they can better analyze the world through the senses to
determine their
compliance with the original form that the object resembles. The similarity between the
two philosophies
is in Aristotle’s substance.
Aristotle’s
substance can be paralleled back to Plato seeking to have knowledge of
the
Form’s essence and nature.