The Metaphysics of Plato, Aristotle & Socrates?

Answer 1

Plato's Metaphysics can be described as his "Theory of Forms"

Plato described his theory of Forms or Ideas in many different contexts in the Phaedo. Three general clauses can put the theory into view. First, grasp what exactly a form concept or idea is one must alleviate preconceived notions. By releasing misconceptions gained through experience and false teachings one can at least admit that concepts are deeper than perceptions and empirical knowledge. Second, all instances provide an accurate description of an independant ‘form’ unassociated with the original instance. Lastly, along the lines of the forms independence from the material objects they are also independent of being created imagined or neither. In Plato’s words forms are, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble and never consistently the same.
Plato also provides arguments to defend his Theory of forms as well. They can be grouped into three main categories, metaphysical, epistemological and semantical. The first essentially is the idea of recollection. Plato argues that if something has never been experienced than the goal or form of it must have been there independently. For example if a teacher draws a circle on the chalk board chances are it is not perfect circle. Maybe never even has an instance of a perfect circle existed, but certainly the concept of ‘circleness’ exists. To say that 100 circles drawn by math teachers is more circular than the concept of circle is absurd. To say that the drawing a circle on the board is a prerequisite to the concept of circle is also, to Plato, absurd. The second argument deals with knowledge as being something which never changes. This premise eliminats material objects and sensory perceptions from the ‘form’ sweepstakes. Forms do not change and are representative of the truth. The concluding argument Plato provides can be found the allegory of the cave analogy in the Republic, as well as in the movie “Waking Life.” It is to understand that a Form is simply the thing which groups together a bunch of unique things under one umbrella. Cats are all different colors shapes and sizes, some have broken legs and some have missing teeth but neither the shape, color, size, number of legs or teethes makes a cat a cat; the form of catness is what unites them.

Aristotles Metaphysics:

Causality

In Metaphysics and Posterior Analytics, Aristotle argued that all causes of things are beginnings; that we have scientific knowledge when we know the cause; that to know a thing's existence is to know the reason for its existence. He was the first who set the guidelines for all the subsequent causal theories by specifying the number, nature, principles, elements, varieties, and order of causes as well as the modes of causation. Aristotle's account of the causes of things is the most comprehensive theory up to now. According to Aristotle's theory, all the causes may fall into several groups, the total number of which amounts to the ways the question 'why' may be answered; namely by reference to: the matter or the substratum; the essence, the pattern, the form, or the structure; the primary moving change or the agent and its action; the goal, the plan, the end, or the good. As a consequence, the major kinds of causes come under the following divisions:

The Material Cause is that from which a thing comes into existence as from its parts, constituents, substratum or materials. This reduces the explanation of causes to the parts (factors, elements, constituents, ingredients) forming the whole (system, structure, compound, complex, composite, or combination) (the part-whole causation).

The Formal Cause tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype. It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (macrostructure) is the cause of its parts (the whole-part causation).

The Efficient Cause is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies 'what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed' and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause and effect, this covers the modern definitions of "cause" as either the agent or agency or particular events or states of affairs.

The Final Cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, all that gives purpose to behavior.

Additionally, things can be causes of one another, causing each other reciprocally, as hard work causes fitness and vice versa, although not in the same way or function, the one is as the beginning of change, the other as the goal. [Thus Aristotle first suggested a reciprocal or circular causality as a relation of mutual dependence or action or influence of cause and effect.] Also, Aristotle indicated that the same thing can be the cause of contrary effects, its presence and absence may result in different outcomes.

Aristotle marked two modes of causation: proper (prior) causation and accidental (chance) causation. All causes, proper and incidental, can be spoken as potential or as actual, particular or generic. The same language refers to the effects of causes, so that generic effects assigned to generic causes, particular effects to particular causes, operating causes to actual effects. Essentiallly, causality does not suggest a temporal relation between the cause and the effect

All further investigations of causality will be consisting in imposing the favorite hierarchies on the order causes, like as final > efficient> material > formal (Thomas Aquinas), or in restricting all causality to the material and efficient causes or to the efficient causality (deterministic or chance) or just to regular sequences and correlations of natural phenomena (the natural sciences describing how things happen instead of explaining the whys and wherefores).

Socrates Metaphysics

Although he never wrote anything down, for all intents and purposes we must assume that what Plato said of Socrates opinion is true. therefore what Socrates thought is what Plato though because Plato spoke through Socrates.

Essentially Plato felt there was an idealistic almost unachievable form that could be looked to for perfection above any individual instance of that object, where as Aristotle charactarised the specific sampling that he found and held that as perfection above any generalized model or form.

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

Well, first, Socrates never wrote anything, he was used as a narrative voice by Plato. So was all that in The Republic, etc Plato or Socrates? As to Aristotle....well, like what do you mean? Are you asking what the details of their metaphysics are? Or are you asking how they relate? Or are they the same? Or different? And by metaphysics do you mean what are the meta-values that Plato and Aristotle evoked and invoked? Or what is the phenomonological connection between the meta-values and the mythology?

Answer 3

It all hinges on a the primacy of Forms, or universals.

Plato thought the Form was the truly real.
Aristotle thought the particular instantiation was.

But they both share an extension of reality to the universal.
And on many interpretations, Aristotle is not the mere naturalist he seems, but very Platonic in his assumptions about these categories.

Aristotle gave an account of causality that is much richer than the one we employ today. Fourfold causality considered material, formal, efficient, and final causes. We only use the 3rd. To Aristotle, providing all the causes or reasons behind a thing was the only way to know it.

Answer 4

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/avFOn

No. Because they weren't around to learn all the fantastic developments which their ideas germinated. I don't think Socrates or Plato could have wrapped their minds around Kant's views on metaphysics and epistemology, nor could Aristotle accept Nietszche's view of the Ubermensch nor of Marx's economic determination of human behaviour. Generally, those prodigies who invent a concept might not be able to handle developments in their theory brought on by future progidies: e.g., could the Wright Brothers fly a 747? The development of jet aircraft would probably boggle Orville and Wilbur !?!

Answer 5

I like Socrates and Aristotle but Plato is a bit too optimistic bordering on naive

Answer 6

Yes

Answer 7

Since they were from ancient greece they wouldn't know and i doubt they would be computer literate.

Answer 8

On being the dynamic trio.

Answer 9

compelling

Answer 10

And your question is... ?