Friday, February 4th
Plato, Aristotle, Buddha & Lao-tzu wrote very different views on metaphysics. Whose is the most appealing to you & why? Which is the least appealing to you & why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for students in Meredith Aby-Keirstead's Introduction to Philosophy class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. There is an expectation by the instructor & the JHS administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at JHS apply to the blog.
20 comments:
Buddha, in my opinion, was the best suited for me. I am all for inner peace and happiness. Although there are some key things of his argument, such as the whole "material goods" thing I don't quite agree with. I think the whole idea of inner peace and enlightenment just appeals to me because it sounds nice. That is why I side with buddha.
The most appealing view on metaphysics to me is what Aristotle concluded, that everything that is reality is learned and known by the senses. He credits human experience for gaining knowledge and I completely agree with that, my personal experiences have taught me very much. The least appealing to me is Plato's philosophy on that our souls get a glimpse of another world, the world of Forms, before we are born and that is how we can recognize the imperfect copies of that Form. He says that we already know everything but throughout our lives of "learning" we are merely remembering. I disagree with this because there is a lot of stuff I have learned that I had never known before. Also, I do not believe that there is a different world just for the perfect Forms.
Aristotle's view on metaphysics is the most appealing to me because i agree that you learn my experience and that you know the similarities of thing because you had to learn what the things were. The least appealing view on metaphysics to my is Plato's idea that you see the true form of everything before you were born because you don't know what everything is, you have to learn it over time by experiencing it and asking questions.
Aristotle's view on metaphysics is the most appealing to me because i agree that you learn my experience and that you know the similarities of thing because you had to learn what the things were. The least appealing view on metaphysics to my is Plato's idea that you see the true form of everything before you were born because you don't know what everything is, you have to learn it over time by experiencing it and asking questions.
I think the view of the world that most appeals to me is Lao-tszu's Taoism philosophy. It doesn't urge you to turn away from the world and your senses, but to observe it, and to realize everything has to have a balance. Aristotle's is also appealing, but I think Taoism wins out for me because the idea of everything not only having light and dark sides but needing them seems very true and very appealing to me.
Plato's view on the world is definitely least appealing to me. I don't think anything can be gained from turning away from or ignoring or trying to escape the world we live in. Buddha's is a little better, I think, because of the idea of reincarnation. I think what bothers me most about Plato's philosophy is the once-chance kind of feeling to it. We have no proof that there is another world or another chance; whether there is one or not, we don't know. So I don't think the one shot we know we have should be squandered, even in the name of truth or enlightenment.
This is Kieran Anthony.
To me the least appealing of all our current metaphysics ideas would be those of Buddha's. I don't like his idea of staying away from worldly pleasures. I think that moderation is important, for example, having a doughnut a day is bad but being more moderate with it and taking one a month is better than only eating one a year. Those who rarely eat something are more likely to splurge on it then those who don't.
I personally like Lao-tzu's ideal much more. Harmony is always important, not too much and not too little. Everything is always changing, giving birth to something new. Sometimes we need to remove ourselves from the equation and just basque in the result. I still think that learning about why things happen can be important. Also understanding something can help you to truly see its beauty.
The least appealing views on metaphysics for me come from Plato. I think his belief that the reason why we know things is having seen perfect versions of them in a different life is completely illogical; this is made even worse by his backing up his claim by saying he came to it through reasoning. I find Aristotle's views more appealing; while it is possible that reality is an illusion, I do not find it practical to live life to try to escape my senses. I think that would be futile and therefore unfulfilling. What I sense is probably the most real, and definitely the most important.
1. Out of all these people I think I like Buddha's view the best. One of the reasons is that I'm a Buddhist. Also their views and beliefs are more of guidelines rather then answering questions about the world. It's not really appropriate to contrast these people because of the different things they are trying to find. The person I disagree with more is Plato. Plato's idea of we knowing all ideal forms when we were born seems to abstract to me. I believe that it is more of a learning experience, since I believe in life and death and rebirth. You don't retain any memories of your past life's, but you know the experiences of your past life. To me thats how you know what you do and how you can tell what things are.
Plato's view on metaphysics was most appealing because I would like to think that this isn't the real world and I'm "trapped in a cave". Aristotle's view on metaphysics is the least appealing because there is a "me" and "you" even though he says there isn't.
Buddha is the most appealing to me because I like his idea that people cannot influence your happiness because only you can make your self happy.Buddha thinks the way that you can do this is by finding your inner-self and realizing that you are the one that controls your feelings through thoughts.He also has a good idea about how we need to notice that life will be tough and we will get sick,all reach a rough point in life and to take advantage of being healthy and enjoying it since we know how the opposite of that will be.Overall I think that his theories are interesting.The Least appealing to me is Aristotle because he thinks that everything is real and he opposes Buddhas ideas.Aristotle's view point isn't very interesting to me.I didn't really get a lot of information on him either his theory's were simple and he contradicts Plato even though he was his student.
To me, Lao-tzu and Taoism is most appealing to me when relating to metaphysical questions. I really like how it stresses that nature is very real and important, but also that you must look inside yourself and work to create balance within your life and find the core of reality, which I think creates a nice balance between the physical world we experience, and further thought that isn't necessarily physical. I also like that reality can have two sides to it, the yin and the yang. This shows that reality and the world around you can change, but always follows a general pattern.
I think that Aristotle's view of the world is least appealing to me. If I had to choose between the physical world our senses perceive, and one that our senses don't perceive, I think I would lean more towards the world past the physical, which Buddha and Plato talk about. I think that in order to live a full life, you cannot just think on the lowest level of sense perception, you must look deeper and find truths about the world that are things that you can't just see, or hear. So, I think that Aristotle's lack of a deeper level of reality than just the physical turns me off of his philosophies.
Buddha's views on metaphysics is the most appealing to me if i had to choose one. To me its like picking the best of the worst, because i have my own views about these things which is rooted in my faith. But I think that Plato and Aristotle's views are too far out there, and Buddha's views are like the middle ground of the three. I do agree with Buddha that materialistic things distract humans from our real purpose on earth and our faith.
On the subject of metaphysics I think I like Aristotle's view the most. Both Buddha and Lao-tzu, in my opinion, have great ideas on how to gain information and learn about the world, by looking inside yourself for answers and also looking to nature. Unfortunately when they come to the subject of what it all means, I cannot agree with them. Buddha says that this world is not real, just an illusion, and all that we do should be towards reaching nirvana, or enlightenment. What about after that? Are you eternally happy and know everything there is to know? If so, why hasn't it been written down for all the world to see? For this reason Buddism is my least favorite. Lao-tzu says we must look at the natural world for answers, which I do agree upon. The theory of yin and yang is a bit too narrow for me, I believe there are shades of gray, or areas in between yin and yang. Daoism would have to be my second favorite of the three. I really groove with Aristotle's way of thinking because he believed that what we see and experience is the true reality, and the answers aren't somewhere in the unknown, we just haven't found them yet. I like to take solace in the thought that our lives our meaningful and I can actually bring about change. Without that, I feel like most people would see the world as a fake place and stop trying to do what it is they love. To me, Aristotle is more of an optimist, and when asked large questions about "What is real" I feel it is more appropriate to express a sense of hope and inspiration, instead of a grim answer like "nothing you see is real".
Lao-tzu's view on metaphysics is the most appealing to me because it just... Feels right. I don't really know how to explain that one. I think it might be that I like the idea of everything being a part of one whole and moving with the same energy. I also strongly agree with the example, "To know happiness, one must know sadness." I don't think it's possible to truly understand something without also knowing the opposite.
Buddha's view is probably the least appealing to me because I don't like the idea of disconnecting from the world to reach enlightenment. I believe that we are a part of the world, so we should BE a part of the world.
@Kieran: I really love the way you described both philosophies, especially the donut-splurge example for Buddhism. I completely agree with you, I don't think much is gained from depriving yourself of things you may enjoy or even learn from.
The least appealing to me would be Plato and his idea of the cave. To me it sounds as if Plato is saying that i'm not perfect, and can never be perfect, and the same to everything around me. There isn't some ultimate world where everything is perfect and there is some perfect other 'me' or perfect other 'human'. Everything that is in this world, the supposed imperfect world, is just fine as it is, and can be made better. Sadly, I'd probably be one of the stuck up people in the cave who can't accept that this perfect world exists. If it does exist, awesome, way to go Plato, you figured it out. If not, I'd just remind the world that I thought so in the first place. Perfection isn't real, it can't be real, it can be good, better, best, and so on, but nothing can be truly perfect because the thing (say a piece of art), cannot be viewed the same by each person. Therefor, it can't be perfect because not everyone will have the same perfect opinion about it.
The most appealing idea to me is that of both Buddha and Lao-tzu. I can't fully agree with either one, and both have ideas I like. Karma, for instance, is an idea I believe in. The fact that my happiness isn't caused by other people, I can't agree with. Being happy involves other people socializing and doing fun things, to be happy by myself is boring and not very interesting. I'd much rather share the happiness with everyone close to me. I'm not saying that I am materialistic though. I could go forever without a phone, my tv, my art supplies, I know I don't really need them to be truly happy like Buddha says. To entertain myself, however, I believe that some material objects are required when just your imagination isn't enough.
Buddha seems the most appealing to me, because over all he just seems to be a cool mellow guy, very down to Earth. He believed we can reach nirvana through happiness within. He doesn't believe that things can bring you happiness only suffering. Since I'm a happy go lucky guy, I can kind of relate to Buddha. The least appealing philosopher to me is probably Plato. He seems to have some good idea but most I can't relate with. Like his idea on "forms". Yes, there are similarities in the world, but I don't think things can be exactly the same.
Aristotle's view on metaphysics appeals to me the most because he deduced that we know what we know because of the experiences we've had throughout our life. We learn as we go along. He also encourages us to be virtuous and hold on to the things that matter, not worldly possessions. He thinks that we should pursue happiness through ourselves and enlightenment, not through having our happiness depend on having particular things or people. I agree that you shouldn't depend on material things or people to be happy. True happiness comes from within.
The idea which appeals to me the least is definitely the idea proposed by Plato. He believed that our world isn't real, that our reality is only an illusion hiding us from the truth. The truth being an alternate universe where the "Ideal Form" of everything dwells. He argued that we are blind to the truth, and so we cannot see the "real world". He encouraged people to trust their logic rather than their senses. I agree that we should question things around us, but I don't think there's an alternate reality that we're all blind to. I don't WANT to know that there's an alternate reality. His entire idea just throws me off balance. I like to think that we're exactly where we should be.
Lao-tzu's view on metaphysics makes the most sense to me because it focuses on maintaining balance in life. It's nice to remember to do things in moderation, in order to not become overwhelmed or caught up in the superficial. I think staying unstressed and trying to stay "in harmony" is a great way to become content.
The least appealing viewpoint for me is Plato's. His idea of a separate world of Forms does not make much sense to me. Like Aristotle, I question his logic in duplicating everything to make two worlds and believe that our senses are the closest to reality rather than these abstract concepts.
Aristotle appeals the most to me. I think he was very accurate in his findings. He thought that all knowledge comes from experiences and one should trust their senses to find what is real. I agree with this one hundred percent. I believe he was on the right track and it is what i believe
Post a Comment