Hello again. Here's another essay I did in first year, this one's more to do with logic in philosophy. Have a gander and see if it's any good to someone.
Today, the word argument is often misused to mean a heated debate between two people, involving shouting, raised voices, fist waving and other such aggressive behaviour. However, the correct meaning of the word argument is much simpler. An argument is a construction of statements from which a conclusion is drawn. For an argument to “make sense”, so to speak, it must contain a level or validity and/or truth. In this essay I will explain the relationship between the two states.
First of all, I will attempt to distinguish the difference between the terms “truth” and “validity”. Validity is a property of argument whereas truth is a property of assertions. Validity has to do with whether a conclusion follows from an argument’s premises. As we will see later, it is possible to have a valid argument with false premises. That is because the validity of an argument is not dependant on having true premises. The argument is valid only if the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Therefore, when empirical facts are used in the reasoning process, what we concern is the truth of the statements; however when the conditional facts are used, what we concern is the validity of the conditional statements.
In order for someone to construct an argument, it must contain at least one premise. For example, one can state that “all third level students drink Guinness”. From this, the conclusion “some third level students drink Guinness” can be drawn. This argument can be considered a logically valid argument because of the distribution of the subject “third level students” as “some” is included in “all”. Note that whether or not the statement “all third level students drink Guinness” is true or not bears no relevance to the argument’s validity. If the statement or premise is something obviously false such as “all dogs are cats” and the conclusion drawn from this is “some dogs are cats”, this still constructs a logically valid argument.
An argument can have more than one premise. An argument that contains true premises must also have a true conclusion. An argument cannot be valid if it has true premises and a false conclusion. Take the following syllogistic argument for example:
“All third level students drink Guinness.
John is a third level student.
Therefore, John drinks Guinness.”
With the same logic used in the previous paragraph, we can see that the argument is a valid one due to the distribution. In the above argument “All third level students drink Guinness.” is the first premise, “John is a third level student.” is the second premise and “Therefore, John drinks Guinness” is the conclusion. Even though this argument is logically valid, it once again bears no relevance to the truth of the argument. The above argument could possibly be true, i.e. it is not beyond impossibility. The subject of the argument, “third level students”, is the middle term. This term is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion as no matter what subject is used as the middle term, it does not change the conclusion or it’s truth in any way.
To simplify the inspection of an argument’s validity and truth to convert it to standard logical form. A simple example is to apply the letters “P”, “Q” and “R” to terms “third level students”, “John” and to the set of Guinness drinkers in the above example respectively. Using these symbols, the standard logical form of the above argument can be abbreviated as follows:
“All P is R.
Q is a P.
Therefore, Q is R.”
Using these symbols, the plain logical form of the argument is made clear. Notice now that any argument in the above configuration can be expressed in standard logical form to aid in assessing it’s truth and validity.
While the truth of propositions and the validity of reasoning are distinct, the relationship between the two is not entirely straightforward. We cannot say that truth and validity and totally independent because of the impossibility of a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion shows that one combination of truth-values is an absolute bar to validity. When an argument has a true premise and false conclusion, it must be valid. This is, in fact, the very definition of invalidity.
One should never be brought by true conclusions or true premises to the assumption that the argument is valid. Nor should valid reasoning lead one to the assumption that the statements are true or by invalid reasoning to suppose that the statements are false.
When truth and validity are combined, this brings about the concept of soundness. An argument is sound if (and only if) all it’s premises are true and its reasoning is valid. All other forms of argument are unsound. It also follows that all sound arguments have true conclusions.
In the example I used above, we saw that the argument is valid but not necessarily true. If we knew (empirically or otherwise) for a fact that all third level students drink Guinness and that John is a third level student, then the conclusion that John drinks Guinness is not only valid but true. This would be an example of a sound argument.
In logic, an argument isn’t so much tested for validity as it is for invalidity. In this essay, I have shown what invalidity in an argument is to have true premises and a false conclusion. An argument that is simply not invalid is technically valid but in a weak sense. But to test for invalidity, one must identify when they are dealing with a true premise and a false conclusion. However, a logician cannot know whether or not a statement is true or false as they deal only in the logic of the argument and not the factual content of the information.
The word argument is indeed often misused today to refer to a heated debate etc. but it is also used correctly as well. In a political debate, two politicians can argue their views to each other or to an audience of people without a single raised word being used. The politicians would state what they believe or what they stand for and give reasons for such, resulting in an argument similar to the ones described above. Their opponent will then try to deconstruct the argument by testing for invalidity by attacking the truth of the statements. Therefore, when one puts forward a valid argument for something, one must also note that the truth of the conclusion is not so disconnected from the validity of the premises as one may have first thought.
Friday, May 13, 2011
College Essay: "Aristotle’s Understanding Of Happiness As The Supreme Practical Good”
Hi everyone. This is another first year of college essay I wrote concerning Aristotle and happiness as the supreme practical good. Don't take what I say in it to be completely right or wrong but I hope it's of use to somebody!
Aristotle was a an ancient Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover a wide variety of topics, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theatre, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato’s teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. In this essay I will assess his understanding of the concept of happiness as a supreme practical good.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle emphasizes the belief that doing good and achieving “supreme happiness” is every man’s desire. He argues that while people speak of acquired happiness in a variety of ways, true happiness comes from the activity of using what he calls humanity’s highest function: rationalising through the human mind. In order for us to be truly happy, we must be truly committed to doing good. If we are truly happy, we will never have to worry about being distressed. Happiness is found truly in the journey of life, not in the arriving of some destination, or the end itself.
Aristotle completely agrees with that point of view, in his words he describes happiness, or the human good, as the activity of soul exhibiting excellence. That activity of soul exhibiting excellence is in the journey, but in the journey to what? Happiness is the ultimate end or goal of being completely virtuous, but it is something that is found in the activity of striving for that end. He believes that animals and children cannot experience happiness because they are not capable of being happy. Aristotle believes that happiness is the ultimate end or goal of being completely virtuous but some actions that people perform might be good but are not necessarily completely virtuous.
Since humans desire happiness for no larger purpose, Aristotle considers it the highest good man hopes to achieve, unlike honour, excellence, intelligence or wealth. He upholds that wealth alone is not happiness as wealth is just a monetary value but can be used to gain some happiness. Like wealth, he thinks honour is not happiness, because honour focuses more on the people that honour, rather than he who is honoured. Pleasure is not happiness either, because "the life of gratification" is "completely slavish, since the life they decide on is the life for grazing animals." The last is virtue, and virtue is not happiness either, since one could be virtuous and not use it. Instead, Aristotle says that happiness is a combination of the four. Thus, Aristotle describes the good life by saying that, "the happy person is one who expresses complete virtue in his activities, with an adequate supply of external goods, not just for any time but for a complete life."
So, the good life consists of moral and intellectual virtue, a certain measure of goods, and friendship. But Aristotle is also interested in the relationship between happiness, on the one hand, and pleasure and contemplation, on the other. He wants to avoid that "pleasure is the good" and the other extreme that "it is altogether base." Aristotle's middle view is that, while pleasure is choice worthy," some pleasures are
good and contribute to happiness. Aristotle believes that living involves activity motivated by desire, and pleasure follows successful activity. Yet happiness is not just amusement but is a means to productive activity, rather than an end to itself.
Aristotle finishes off his discussion of ethical living with a slightly more detailed description of attaining true happiness. According to Aristotle, pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued, since it is, by its nature, incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Hence, we are rightly guided in life by our natural preference for engaging in pleasant activities rather than in unpleasant ones.
Genuine happiness lies in actions that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Thus, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete. In intellectual activity, human beings most nearly approach a blessed divinity, while realizing all of the genuine human virtues as well.
In thus defining human happiness, Aristotle does not aim at determining which good is absolutely supreme, but only that which relatively is the highest for man in his present condition.
Aristotle makes happiness and the highest good to consist in virtuous action, yet he does not exclude pleasure, but holds that pleasure in it’s purest form comes from virtue. Pleasure completes an action and is added to it. Therefore, Aristotle places man's highest good in his perfection, which is identical with his happiness and carries with it pleasure.
Aristotle was a an ancient Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover a wide variety of topics, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theatre, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato’s teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. In this essay I will assess his understanding of the concept of happiness as a supreme practical good.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle emphasizes the belief that doing good and achieving “supreme happiness” is every man’s desire. He argues that while people speak of acquired happiness in a variety of ways, true happiness comes from the activity of using what he calls humanity’s highest function: rationalising through the human mind. In order for us to be truly happy, we must be truly committed to doing good. If we are truly happy, we will never have to worry about being distressed. Happiness is found truly in the journey of life, not in the arriving of some destination, or the end itself.
Aristotle completely agrees with that point of view, in his words he describes happiness, or the human good, as the activity of soul exhibiting excellence. That activity of soul exhibiting excellence is in the journey, but in the journey to what? Happiness is the ultimate end or goal of being completely virtuous, but it is something that is found in the activity of striving for that end. He believes that animals and children cannot experience happiness because they are not capable of being happy. Aristotle believes that happiness is the ultimate end or goal of being completely virtuous but some actions that people perform might be good but are not necessarily completely virtuous.
Since humans desire happiness for no larger purpose, Aristotle considers it the highest good man hopes to achieve, unlike honour, excellence, intelligence or wealth. He upholds that wealth alone is not happiness as wealth is just a monetary value but can be used to gain some happiness. Like wealth, he thinks honour is not happiness, because honour focuses more on the people that honour, rather than he who is honoured. Pleasure is not happiness either, because "the life of gratification" is "completely slavish, since the life they decide on is the life for grazing animals." The last is virtue, and virtue is not happiness either, since one could be virtuous and not use it. Instead, Aristotle says that happiness is a combination of the four. Thus, Aristotle describes the good life by saying that, "the happy person is one who expresses complete virtue in his activities, with an adequate supply of external goods, not just for any time but for a complete life."
So, the good life consists of moral and intellectual virtue, a certain measure of goods, and friendship. But Aristotle is also interested in the relationship between happiness, on the one hand, and pleasure and contemplation, on the other. He wants to avoid that "pleasure is the good" and the other extreme that "it is altogether base." Aristotle's middle view is that, while pleasure is choice worthy," some pleasures are
good and contribute to happiness. Aristotle believes that living involves activity motivated by desire, and pleasure follows successful activity. Yet happiness is not just amusement but is a means to productive activity, rather than an end to itself.
Aristotle finishes off his discussion of ethical living with a slightly more detailed description of attaining true happiness. According to Aristotle, pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued, since it is, by its nature, incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Hence, we are rightly guided in life by our natural preference for engaging in pleasant activities rather than in unpleasant ones.
Genuine happiness lies in actions that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Thus, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete. In intellectual activity, human beings most nearly approach a blessed divinity, while realizing all of the genuine human virtues as well.
In thus defining human happiness, Aristotle does not aim at determining which good is absolutely supreme, but only that which relatively is the highest for man in his present condition.
Aristotle makes happiness and the highest good to consist in virtuous action, yet he does not exclude pleasure, but holds that pleasure in it’s purest form comes from virtue. Pleasure completes an action and is added to it. Therefore, Aristotle places man's highest good in his perfection, which is identical with his happiness and carries with it pleasure.
College Essay: Comparing the views of Plato and Kant with regards to the topic of appearance vs reality
Hey guys. This is just an essay I wrote in first year of college on appearance vs reality in Plato and Kant. Go easy on it, I was 19 and was merely weeks into studying philosophy. I hope it's helpful to someone out there anyway!
Philosophers have long debated the difference between appearance and reality. One who has no prior experience in the topic philosophically may be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that what we see is, in fact, what is real. In this essay, I will discuss and compare the views of Plato and Kant on the topic of appearance and reality. This will include their own views, similarities and differences in opinion, strengths and weaknesses in argument.
“If ‘real’ is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” This quote, taken from The Matrix, gives a very minimalist explanation of what reality is. It states that reality is the immediate world around us, built upon sensual experience. It is this very view of reality which is abolished in Kant’s “Critique Of Pure Reason”.
In “Critique Of Pure Reason”, Kant holds the view that not all knowledge stems from sensory experience. Kant holds that there are two different kinds of things: Things as they appear (called “Phenomena”) which are within the confines of the empirical world around us and things in themselves (called “Noumena”) within a world which cannot be observed via the senses. It is the latter which Kant claims is reality. Even the term “Pure Reason” has come to refer to knowledge not gained by the senses but inherently from the structure of the mind.
Kant argues that knowledge cannot be gained from sensual experience in the world as these experiences are separate and unreliable. For example, if a person were to pick up a tennis ball and acknowledge that it is round, yellow and fuzzy, they cannot know that everything that is round, yellow and fuzzy is, and always will be, a tennis ball. In this particular example, the sensations of a small, round, yellow, fuzzy and bouncy ball are attributed with the name “Tennis Ball”. This is, according to Kant, the coordination of senses into objects and applying them to space and time.
Kant professes that we cannot constantly acknowledge the bombardment of the senses by each individual experience and so this is why we attribute unique groupings of sensual experiences to objects.
According to Kant, since the real world is not accessible to the senses, it is unknowable. If it were possible to observe this real world empirically, it would fail to be independently real anymore.
In Plato’s allegory of the cave, there is a similar distinction between appearance and reality. The following is taken directly from Plato’s The Republic, Book VII:
“Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.”
In the above allegory, the fire casts a shadow from the “puppets” onto the wall before the prisoners. As the prisoners have been there since childhood, the prisoners see the shadows as their reality as they know nothing more. As the allegory progresses, the situation is considered where a prisoner is allowed to escape from the cave. The prisoner in question would view the actual objects whose shadows are on the wall. The actual light from the fire and outside is enough to cause pain to this person’s eyes but they can now see what is real and what is illusion. This process of leaving the cave is interpreted as a philosopher’s ability to stop employing their senses in the search for a true reality.
This instantly strikes up a similarity with Kant’s “Critique Of Pure Reason”. Both philosophers appear to hold the view that the senses alone are not enough to obtain true knowledge of reality. In the allegory of the cave, Plato may have implied that it is possible to get an idea of reality by observing the images (or shadows) cast on the wall as they would be a two-dimensional image of their “real” counterparts. The shadows in Plato’s allegory can be equated to the things as they appear in the world mentioned in Kant’s “Critique Of Pure Reason”. This leads us to the conclusion that both philosophers certainly held the same view that empirically observing and studying the world which is immediate to us will not assist in gaining an understanding of reality.
This is where both part company on the subject. Kant, as discussed above, holds the view that the real world is “unknowable” and cannot be known or experienced with the senses. However, in the allegory of the cave, Plato maintains that it is possible to obtain knowledge of the real world by ceasing the use of our senses and by using intellect alone. If we were to obtain knowledge of the real world, according to Kant’s view, the real world would cease to be independently real.
As we have seen, both philosophers handle the topic of appearance and reality quite similarly. Both Kant and Plato hold the opinion that there is an absolute difference between the two but where Plato claims that reality can be understood through enlightenment via the use of intellect, Kant maintains that this is not possible. Not only is it not feasible, according to Kant, but it is also undesirable as an understanding of the perfect, real world, would result in it lacking perfection and in turn, empirical independence.
Philosophers have long debated the difference between appearance and reality. One who has no prior experience in the topic philosophically may be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that what we see is, in fact, what is real. In this essay, I will discuss and compare the views of Plato and Kant on the topic of appearance and reality. This will include their own views, similarities and differences in opinion, strengths and weaknesses in argument.
“If ‘real’ is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” This quote, taken from The Matrix, gives a very minimalist explanation of what reality is. It states that reality is the immediate world around us, built upon sensual experience. It is this very view of reality which is abolished in Kant’s “Critique Of Pure Reason”.
In “Critique Of Pure Reason”, Kant holds the view that not all knowledge stems from sensory experience. Kant holds that there are two different kinds of things: Things as they appear (called “Phenomena”) which are within the confines of the empirical world around us and things in themselves (called “Noumena”) within a world which cannot be observed via the senses. It is the latter which Kant claims is reality. Even the term “Pure Reason” has come to refer to knowledge not gained by the senses but inherently from the structure of the mind.
Kant argues that knowledge cannot be gained from sensual experience in the world as these experiences are separate and unreliable. For example, if a person were to pick up a tennis ball and acknowledge that it is round, yellow and fuzzy, they cannot know that everything that is round, yellow and fuzzy is, and always will be, a tennis ball. In this particular example, the sensations of a small, round, yellow, fuzzy and bouncy ball are attributed with the name “Tennis Ball”. This is, according to Kant, the coordination of senses into objects and applying them to space and time.
Kant professes that we cannot constantly acknowledge the bombardment of the senses by each individual experience and so this is why we attribute unique groupings of sensual experiences to objects.
According to Kant, since the real world is not accessible to the senses, it is unknowable. If it were possible to observe this real world empirically, it would fail to be independently real anymore.
In Plato’s allegory of the cave, there is a similar distinction between appearance and reality. The following is taken directly from Plato’s The Republic, Book VII:
“Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.”
In the above allegory, the fire casts a shadow from the “puppets” onto the wall before the prisoners. As the prisoners have been there since childhood, the prisoners see the shadows as their reality as they know nothing more. As the allegory progresses, the situation is considered where a prisoner is allowed to escape from the cave. The prisoner in question would view the actual objects whose shadows are on the wall. The actual light from the fire and outside is enough to cause pain to this person’s eyes but they can now see what is real and what is illusion. This process of leaving the cave is interpreted as a philosopher’s ability to stop employing their senses in the search for a true reality.
This instantly strikes up a similarity with Kant’s “Critique Of Pure Reason”. Both philosophers appear to hold the view that the senses alone are not enough to obtain true knowledge of reality. In the allegory of the cave, Plato may have implied that it is possible to get an idea of reality by observing the images (or shadows) cast on the wall as they would be a two-dimensional image of their “real” counterparts. The shadows in Plato’s allegory can be equated to the things as they appear in the world mentioned in Kant’s “Critique Of Pure Reason”. This leads us to the conclusion that both philosophers certainly held the same view that empirically observing and studying the world which is immediate to us will not assist in gaining an understanding of reality.
This is where both part company on the subject. Kant, as discussed above, holds the view that the real world is “unknowable” and cannot be known or experienced with the senses. However, in the allegory of the cave, Plato maintains that it is possible to obtain knowledge of the real world by ceasing the use of our senses and by using intellect alone. If we were to obtain knowledge of the real world, according to Kant’s view, the real world would cease to be independently real.
As we have seen, both philosophers handle the topic of appearance and reality quite similarly. Both Kant and Plato hold the opinion that there is an absolute difference between the two but where Plato claims that reality can be understood through enlightenment via the use of intellect, Kant maintains that this is not possible. Not only is it not feasible, according to Kant, but it is also undesirable as an understanding of the perfect, real world, would result in it lacking perfection and in turn, empirical independence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)