Iqra_hussain216
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
‘Aristotles theory of the 4 causes are convincing’
And
‘Aristotle is wrong to believe everything has a purpose’
I’m kind of confused on both of these statements
Because doesn’t everything have a purpose? If we assign even an object a purpose to just be there surely even it has a purpose?
And I don’t know what I’d argue for the first either
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
Sartre disagrees with Aristotle, claiming that humans are not born with a purpose but if they are to have one must create their own subjectively.

Nihilists would go further than Sartre and argue that there is no such thing as purpose and that even the attempt to subjectively create one is a fiction and thus a falsehood.

You can also criticise the idea of purpose with modern science, which struggles to find a place for purpose within its mechanistic materialist view of the universe. Where is purpose? What is it made from? Absurd questions, but then perhaps purpose is a scientifically absurd concept?

Modern science generally is what is used to criticise Aristotle. Aristotle thought that when you push a ball and it stops moving, that shows that its movement 'runs out'. However, the stars and planets do not stop moving, they never 'run out', so something must be sustaining their motion which then, he thought, sustains the motion of things on earth. The prime mover is that sustainer. Aristotle claimed the prime mover was the final cause of the universe. We now know this to be incorrect thanks to Newton. If you throw a ball in empty space, it actually keeps moving until met by an equal and opposite reaction. On earth, that opposite reaction is the friction of the ball with the ground. So the kinetic energy does not run out, it is transferred to heat energy. Aristotle was wrong, however at least his empirical method of observation was not wrong since Newton used that, combining it with empirical experiment. Aristotle's conclusions were incorrect but his empiricist method was taken up by modern science. Nonetheless modern science does not have room for the idea of purpose.

Another key thing you can do in these questions is bring in Plato as a contrasting view to Aristotle and evaluate which one you think is correct, which will then help you have an answer to the question, because If Plato's rationalist a priori approach is correct, then Aristotle's empiricist a posteriori approach is incorrect and vice versa.

More notes here:
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/
0
reply
Iqra_hussain216
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#3
Thank you so much! I really had no idea what to write because I just kept assuming everything had to be given a purpose and nothing else could be accepted
You’ve really helped me understand them so thank you so much! It’s much appreciated
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Arts University Bournemouth
    Postgraduate Open Afternoon Postgraduate
    Thu, 12 Dec '19
  • Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance
    Musical Theatre Undergraduate
    Fri, 13 Dec '19
  • Bournemouth University
    Midwifery Open Day at Portsmouth Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 18 Dec '19

Do you work while at uni?

Yes I work at university (100)
33.78%
No I don't (137)
46.28%
I work during the holidays (59)
19.93%

Watched Threads

View All