Davis Kriesel

Philosophy
4-22-2016
Exam #2 Make-Up
1. Describe the differences between Platos Academy and
Aristotles Lyceum and describe how the subjects taught in their
schools related to their views on Metaphysics and Epistemology.
The Lyceum and the Academy were obviously both intuitions of
learning and from what we can tell they were highly respected ones
at that, almost comparable to attending Harvard, Yale, or Oxford
today. It is important to understand the true scale of what was
happening around the time these institutions were formed. There
were a lot of people in Greece getting into philosophy and reason
ever since Socrates spread his words of wisdom throughout the
people. Youths were coming up likely thinking of philosophy much
as we think of space today, as amazing, revolutionary and exciting.
Obviously when there is a high demand for a service such as a
school to learn philosophy then there will surely be competition. The
people wanted to learn, Plato and Aristotle wanted to teach.
The first to form was Platos Academy, which in many ways was
the first of its kind. This is why you will still see schools called
academies today because the influence on western culture was that
great. Socrates brought up Plato as his student and when Socrates
passed he seemingly became the premier philosopher in Greece at
that time. Though Plato did carry many differences from his teacher.

For one thing Plato wrote down a majority of what he taught and
learned where as Socrates barely took note of anything. Not to
mention that Socrates was disliked by many because of his fairly
abrasive ways and tendency to upstage those who did not have a
firm ego to handle it, quite the opposite Plato was beloved by his
people.
Plato was raised in privilege by his mother and this is said to
have taken great effect on his philosophy later in life. The points he
was taught by his mother were as follows: Self-control, Inner beauty,
and Harmony of women in society. These all came together in the
academy to form the curriculum they used. The Academy was said
to cater mostly to the wealthy and powerful, the elite of Greece.
They cam to learn about the overall picture that Plato conceived in
his mind. The theory of forms and particulars was central to their
learning. Particulars are rather easy to grasp being the things that
we can perceive with our senses and they change constantly. Forms
are not so easy, they are best described as something that is
instilled in the universe itself and is independent from the mind
perceiving it. For example, in class we talked about how the
particular would be a physical chair in the room giving of the sight,
smell and feel of a chair, this same chair has a form which is the
form of chairness meaning that it possess traits of a chair that are
instinctually paired with it. So as you can imagine the Academy had

its head a bit in the clouds, which may have been a good thing
relatively speaking. Catering to the dreams and the full reach of our
imagination mixed with our reason were the pinnacles of thought
there.
Then of course we have the Lyceum, the same general concept
infused with very different and progressive principles. The Academy
did teach that the government should be questioned to avoid
corruption and that classes should not be so separate yet it was
only reachable to those of high class so it was a bit of a catch-22.
The Lyceum similarly thought that the government needs to be
controlled by the people and that all classes should have access to
education and opportunity, however the Lyceum actually made it
possible for the lower class to attend. Money and status were no
object when it came to the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle taught
his students to look not to the inconceivable forms that Plato spoke
of but to observe the things around us to make judgments and
decisions. In a way Aristotle was the father of the scientific process
as he looked at and tested physical things that could be perceived
and proven. This lead to the classes being very close to nature and
environment oriented. It is said that they would go for long walks
under the cover of trees to talk openly about their philosophy. To me
that sounds like the true learning experience and seemingly many
people felt the same then.

2. Describe Aurelius Augustines views towards reason and faith.

Reason and faith are a very difficult thing to elaborate on
because they seem to be our means for elaboration, sort of like
using a big word to describe another big word so obviously no
one has done a very accurate job of this. Aurelius Augustine had
a great affinity for faith and belief in his church. When he was
baptized a Christian in 387 B.C. he began to work for the word of
Christ. Augustine conveyed messages heavily based on the
divine prospect of god and his son the savior. Considered a father
of modern day western philosophy and Christianity so he did a
lot of work in his time and was able to have a profound influence
on those around him.
Augustine basically states that human happiness and the
good life can come only from following the word of god.

Through repentance one may find salvation from their sin, which
causes all of the evil and suffering in their life. Augustine also
advocated for reason within his faith. He seemed to see that a
person cannot guide themselves on blind faith and belief
because it simply doesnt make for a good world to live in.
Augustine stated that the god and the devil must be very close
to evenly matched which is why the struggle is ongoing. Each
human being responsible for their own choices in this struggle to
either help or hinder the work of god and the people he employs
to spread his word. Augustine already has knowledge of
philosophy upon entering the church so his main problem was
likely how to get the orthodox members to listen to and
understand his teachings. It was for this reason that he found
himself advocating highly for the churchs policies and that he
actually helped write some of the document that is referred to as
the Doctrine of Original Sin. With all of this wisdom and faith put
together it is no surprise that Augustine had the impact on his
society that he did.
Augustine was not always so devout to Christianity. For
most of his adult life up to the age of thirty-three, Augustine was
not Christian but Manicheanist. He was so committed to this as
well that he was said to regularly challenge people to public
debate in defense of Manicheanism against Christianity. A life
lived in both sin and excess gave him a unique perspective when

he turned to the Christian church. I feel that it provided some

understanding and therefor compassion on sinner and those
alike, which could likely be the reason these doctrines are still
practiced in the church today.
Arguably the reason in Augustines philosophy lay with his
understanding of the material world and how it works. Sinners
are more common than many may think and that may have
shown Augustine that the world is not perfect. At the same time
as that he finds in the church his own faith. This seems to be
beyond reason for most who Ive been able to speak on their
beliefs and is normally better explained by instinct and
connection to something deeper than the perceived world. I also
find it very impressive that he was able to accomplish that
amount of forward thinking given the times in which he lived. He
was truly a man who has left his mark on western philosophy,
religion, and society itself. Keeping a grasp on both what we feel
and what we perceive are vital to thriving. If we can all be in
touch with each of them then I think we will be able to make
great strides for the human race as a whole.
3. How did Aristotle, The Hedonists, and the Stoics answer the
question, What is happiness?
Happiness has long been of interest to people and
argument is easy to ensue when looking for its true origin. Some
say the origin is within, others suggest it is external, and some
claim it to be a divine or higher power. Whatever the claim may

be, no one has found a way to pinpoint what happiness is as a

whole. No universal answer exists here so we refer to some
answers that are more renown than a majority of the others.
Looking at Aristotle, Hedonists, and Stoics shows a very broad
spectrum of the theories that many hold to today, also they are
more or less the foundation for modern philosophical regards to
happiness origins.
Fist we will discuss the views of Aristotle, The Naturalist,
who was born in 384 B.C. Aristotle began his life studying human
anatomy but at the age of 18 he ventured into the teachings of
Plato. There he took what Plato had taught him to form his views
mixed with a scientific respect, recognition of the natural world,
and a deep knowledge of Platos teachings. Many of Aristotles
claims were opposite to those of his teacher, Plato. Two learning
institutions came about, the Lyceum and the Academy, and they
taught different ideas to different classes of people. Platos
academy was for the higher class and was focused towards
looking beyond our perception and natural world. Quite separate
from those teachings were those of the Lyceum under Aristotle.
He said that all things could be discoverable and natural. This
seemed to coincide with his affinity for the scientific ways and
took a fairly large impression on the way the scientific process
has developed. The final answer that we have from Aristotle on
the origin of happiness is that it is Eudemonia. Eudemonia means

a state of happiness that cannot be taken from you by the

outside world. Its something that you can be personally
comfortable with and live a good life to find self-actualization. I
like to describe it as your inner peace or your happy place so to
speak.
The Hedonist is up for discussion second. Many people
probably know what a hedonist is and this is simply attributed to
the fact that they all saw a gladiator movie with some hedonist
eating grapes at the matches. I thought the same thing when I
started reading the material on them, and I began to find that
what I saw to be selfish is likely just instinctual and reasonable
for some so I feel this helped give me an unbiased knowledge of
hedonism. The hedonist believes that happiness is a result of two
key elements. The first: To seek unmitigated pleasure at all times
and to have the most pleasure that you can. The second: To
avoid pain in general. Anything that causes one discomfort, pain,
or negative feelings of any type should be avoided. Apparently
the philosophers in this field argue these main two points as well
will more stress on one or the other. Hedonism sounds simple
enough though, do all the pleasurable things you can and stay
away from all the crap in the process.
Finally we discuss the Stoics and their views on where
happiness is found. Stoics take a completely different direction
than the hedonists in stating that pursuit of pleasure and

avoidance of pain are not the way to find happiness. Stoics hold
that only through self-discipline and control can a person find
their happiness. It is a peace of mind that is just that, of the
mind. To the Stoic it is your attitude and how you chose to
process what happens in the natural world as an inevitability or
common occurrence. In the book examples are given about a
frustrating day that is entirely influenced by external things such
as traffic, tickets, and running out of gas, a good perspective to
take when trying to grasp how Stoics think. When I recall times
like that I know I was very upset from it and I was having a good
day. Its common to blame your dissatisfaction on others yet it
may also lie with our emotions.

4. Describe the differences between the Rationalist (Descartes) and

the Empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) on how they
answered the question, What is knowledge? and How do we
acquire knowledge?
The Rationalist: Ren Descartes is hailed as the father or
rationalism. He was born in 1596 at a point in history where the
world was emerging from the medieval ages and moving towards

scientific revolution. Revolution formed a perfect stage for

Descartes to introduce his views of rationalism on the world. He
stated that what they currently knew needed to be discarded and
assessed again in a meticulous mathematical and scientific
fashion. It was a fairly perfect theory for the time where change
was celebrated and supported rather than repressed. Descartes
had studied many things including: Greek, Latin, History, Liberal
Arts, Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, Music, Dancing, and
Fencing. Judging by the amount of course work he took on
Descartes must have been a very driven man with a rare mind.
The rationalist believes that knowledge is only
obtainable through first-hand observation and irrefutable proof.
The matter in question must be subjected to testing and
comparison to accepted knowledge for assessment of its
validity. That way of thinking and gaining knowledge sound
pretty familiar because its the same method used today through
modern science and philosophy as well. Descartes pointed out
something no else had, and that was that we were not looking at
the actual causes and effects around us, that we are essentially
making wild guesses when we have the answers in front of us.
The Empiricist: Empiricism is defined as attributing
all knowledge to sense-data which is the original and raw
sensory information our brain intakes. Empiricism states that this
data is what all of our truths and knowledge are derived from.

John Locke was the first to put forth this notion to the world and
he did so in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
published in 1690. The essay was said to have laid the proper
foundation for the final product of empiricism to be founded later
on. Locke was convinced that there is nothing other than what is
perceived, we dont even have imagination or free thought
beyond what we are provided with by experience. Experience is
central in Empiricism because it is through experience that a
person builds up their memory of raw sense-data that is mentally
tampered with to create our own reality.
Next we look at the contribution to Empiricism by
George Berkeley and David Hume. George Berkeley was born in
1685 and he had some important things to add to the theories of
John Locke. Berkeley brought up the point that the material world
cannot actually exist alongside our perceived world because the
perceived world is all that we know. We cannot take a rock and
say that you know everything about it because you only know
what your senses can make of it. Coined the old saying If a tree
falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a
sound? David Hume furthered the prospect as well adding that
many things rlated to metaphysics are based entirely on
unverified ideas, they are very overindulgent and seem to never
end. He was frustrated by the fact that the philosophical

questions posed were never getting answered so they seemed to

be infinite.