|
Mind–body Dualism
In the philosophy of mind, mind–body dualism denotes either the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, Hart, W. D. 1996. "Dualism." pp. 265–267 in ''A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind'', edited by S. Guttenplan. Oxford: Blackwell. or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, as well as between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem. Aristotle shared Plato's view of multiple souls and further elaborated a hierarchical arrangement, corresponding to the distinctive functions of plants, animals, and humans: a nutritive soul of growth and metabolism that all three share; a perceptive soul of pain, pleasure, and desire that only humans and other animals share; and the faculty of reason that is unique to humans only. In this view, a soul is the hylomorphic form of a viable organism, wherein each ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Metaphysics (Aristotle)
''Metaphysics'' (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "things after the ones about the natural world"; Latin: ''Metaphysica'') is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that is sometimes referred to as ''Wisdom'', sometimes as ''First Philosophy'', and sometimes as ''Theology,'' in English. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics. It is a compilation of various texts treating abstract subjects, notably Being, different kinds of causation, form and matter, the existence of mathematical objects and the cosmos. Overview The ''Metaphysics'' is considered to be one of the greatest philosophical works. Its influence on the Greeks, the Muslim philosophers, Maimonides thence the scholastic philosophers and even writers such as Dante was immense. Aristotle gives an epistemology of causation: his theory of four causes to supplement the material and formal causes of earlier theories. Also hi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Consciousness
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. However, the lack of definitions has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debates by philosophers, theologians, linguisticians, and scientists. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked. Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or sou ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
René Descartes
René Descartes ( or ; ; Latinized: Renatus Cartesius; 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) was a French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician, widely considered a seminal figure in the emergence of modern philosophy and science. Mathematics was central to his method of inquiry, and he connected the previously separate fields of geometry and algebra into analytic geometry. Descartes spent much of his working life in the Dutch Republic, initially serving the Dutch States Army, later becoming a central intellectual of the Dutch Golden Age. Although he served a Protestant state and was later counted as a deist by critics, Descartes considered himself a devout Catholic. Many elements of Descartes' philosophy have precedents in late Aristotelianism, the revived Stoicism of the 16th century, or in earlier philosophers like Augustine. In his natural philosophy, he differed from the schools on two major points: first, he rejected the splitting of corporeal substance into mat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Politicus
The ''Statesman'' ( grc-gre, Πολιτικός, ''Politikós''; Latin: ''Politicus''), also known by its Latin title, ''Politicus'', is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato. The text depicts a conversation among Socrates, the mathematician Theodorus, another person named Socrates (referred to as "Socrates the Younger"), and an unnamed philosopher from Elea referred to as "the Stranger" (, ''xénos''). It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at a definition of "statesman," as opposed to "sophist" or "philosopher" and is presented as following the action of the ''Sophist''. The ''Sophist'' had begun with the question of whether the sophist, statesman, and philosopher were one or three, leading the Eleatic Stranger to argue that they were three but that this could only be ascertained through full accounts of each (''Sophist'' 217b). But though Plato has his characters give accounts of the sophist and statesman in their respective dialogues, it is most likely that he never wrote a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sophist (dialogue)
The ''Sophist'' ( el, Σοφιστής; la, SophistaHenri Estienne (ed.), ''Platonis opera quae extant omnia'', Vol. 1, 1578p. 217) is a Platonic dialogue from the philosopher's late period, most likely written in 360 BC. In it the interlocutors, led by Eleatic Stranger employ the method of division in order to classify and define the sophist and describe his essential attributes and differentia vis a vis the philosopher and statesman. Like its sequel, the ''Statesman'', the dialogue is unusual in that Socrates is present but plays only a minor role. Instead, the Eleatic Stranger takes the lead in the discussion. Because Socrates is silent, it is difficult to attribute the views put forward by the Eleatic Stranger to Plato, beyond the difficulty inherent in taking any character to be an author's "mouthpiece". Background The main objective of the dialogue is to identify what a sophist is and how a sophist differs from a philosopher and statesman. Because each seems distinguish ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Theaetetus (dialogue)
The ''Theaetetus'' (; el, Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning epistemology, written BCE. In this dialogue set in a wrestling school, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but ''perception'', knowledge as ''true judgment'', and, finally, knowledge as a '' true judgment with an account.'' Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory. Socrates declares Theaetetus will have benefited from discovering what he does not know, and that he may be better able to approach the topic in the future. The conversation ends with Socrates' announcement that he has to go to court to face a criminal indictment. The framing of the dialogue The dialogue is framed by a brief scene in which Euclid of Megara tells his friend Terpsion that he has a written record of a dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus, which occurred when Theaetetus was quite a young man. This dialogue is then read aloud to the two men by a sl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cratylus (dialogue)
''Cratylus'' ( ; grc, Κρατύλος, ''Kratylos'') is the name of a dialogue by Plato. Most modern scholars agree that it was written mostly during Plato's so-called middle period. In the dialogue, Socrates is asked by two men, Cratylus and Hermogenes, to tell them whether names are "conventional" or "natural", that is, whether language is a system of arbitrary signs or whether words have an intrinsic relation to the things they signify. The individual Cratylus was the first intellectual influence on Plato ( Sedley). Aristotle states that Cratylus influenced Plato by introducing to him the teachings of Heraclitus, according to MW. Riley. Summary The subject of Cratylus is ''on'' ''the correctness of names'' (περὶ ὀνομάτων ὀρθότητος), in other words, it is a critique on the subject of naming (Baxter). When discussing an ὄνομα (''onoma'' ) and how it would relate to its subject, Socrates compares the original creation of a word to the work of a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Phaedo
''Phædo'' or ''Phaedo'' (; el, Φαίδων, ''Phaidōn'' ), also known to ancient readers as ''On The Soul'', is one of the best-known dialogues of Plato's middle period, along with the ''Republic'' and the ''Symposium.'' The philosophical subject of the dialogue is the immortality of the soul. It is set in the last hours prior to the death of Socrates, and is Plato's fourth and last dialogue to detail the philosopher's final days, following ''Euthyphro'', '' Apology'', and ''Crito''. One of the main themes in the ''Phaedo'' is the idea that the soul is immortal. In the dialogue, Socrates discusses the nature of the afterlife on his last day before being executed by drinking hemlock. Socrates has been imprisoned and sentenced to death by an Athenian jury for not believing in the gods of the state (though some scholars think it was more for his support of " philosopher kings" as opposed to democracy) and for corrupting the youth of the city. By engaging in dialectic with ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Crito
''Crito'' ( or ; grc, Κρίτων ) is a dialogue that was written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It depicts a conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito of Alopece regarding justice (''δικαιοσύνη''), injustice (''ἀδικία''), and the appropriate response to injustice after Socrates's imprisonment, which is chronicled in the '' Apology''. In ''Crito'', Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government. In contemporary discussions, the meaning of ''Crito'' is debated to determine whether it is a plea for unconditional obedience to the laws of a society. The text is one of the few Platonic dialogues that appear to be unaffected by Plato's opinions on the matter; it is dated to have been written around the same time as the ''Apology' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Apologia Sokratous
The ''Apology of Socrates'' ( grc-gre, Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους, ''Apología Sokrátous''; la, Apologia Socratis), written by Plato, is a Socratic dialogue of the speech of legal self-defence which Socrates (469–399 BC) spoke at his trial for impiety and corruption in 399 BC. Specifically, the ''Apology of Socrates'' is a defence against the charges of "corrupting the youth" and "not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other '' daimonia'' that are novel" to Athens (24b). Among the primary sources about the trial and death of the philosopher Socrates, the ''Apology of Socrates'' is the dialogue that depicts the trial, and is one of four Socratic dialogues, along with ''Euthyphro'', ''Phaedo'', and ''Crito'', through which Plato details the final days of the philosopher Socrates. The text of apology The ''Apology of Socrates'', by the philosopher Plato (429–347 BC), was one of many explanatory ''apologia'' about Socrates's legal defense aga ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Euthyphro
''Euthyphro'' (; grc, Εὐθύφρων, translit=Euthyphrōn; c. 399–395 BC), by Plato, is a Socratic dialogue whose events occur in the weeks before the trial of Socrates (399 BC), between Socrates and Euthyphro. The dialogue covers subjects such as the meaning of piety and justice. As is common with Plato's earliest dialogues, it ends in aporia. In this dialogue, Socrates meets Euthyphro at the porch of the King Archon. Socrates tells him that he is preparing to go to court against the charges of Meletus on the grounds of impiety. Euthyphro tells Socrates that he is going to court himself to prosecute his father for binding a worker in chains and leaving him to die. This has granted him the ire of his own family who believe his father was in the right. The worker had killed a fellow worker, which they believe exempts his father from liability for leaving him bound in the ditch to starve to death. Since Euthyphro seems assured of himself, Socrates asks him to define piety. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
