This part of the course I am enjoying as I feel that it is a challenge and I am learning a great deal in areas that I have been totally closed to prior to now.
The first fundamental Philosopher that has been raised is 'Plato'. He was a key philosopher of the time. His somewhat unusual way of thinking has led to some discrepancies from others. Plato believes that the world we live in is actually heavily flawed and is full of 'appearances' , many being a simple imitation of a perfect form. For example, there are thousands of different style doors in the world, all of which being very different, despite the fact they all serve the same purpose. However, each style door is a flawed version of the 'perfect' door. Each has an imperfection that links to the perfect door. You may then wonder how can we be aware of what a perfect form is, when all we visually see is imperfection?
Plato's answer to this is simple. Our knowledge about perfection is innate, we are all born with this knowledge and we are subconsciously aware of the perfect form(s).
Plato (above)
Aristotle is another influential philosopher of the time and was also a student of Plato. Naturally they agreed on a lot of ideas but likewise disagreed on some topics. They differed in some respects although they shared a close relationship. Aristotle believed that our senses were vital in understanding society and the world we live in; this is something that opposed the views of Plato.
During the lecture, there was a brief mentioning of The Dark Ages and how few changes occurred during this time. It almost came across that developments as a whole came to a complete standstill. The Church also played a key role at this time as in many cases it would try and prevent new ideas from surfacing. This then meant that when in the era of the Renaissance, art and literature and even big scientific discoveries were being made, change was finally happening and at a super rate too! Protagoras suggests 'man is the measure of all things'. This was a real change from the way people had previously thought and in many ways began to oppose the Church. The Renaissance was a period in time that argued for a more humanistic world. It argued that mankind were the creators, unlike the Church who believed that mankind was flawed from the very beginning.
During the Renaissance, more philosophers came to light following the rise of science. Pythagoras was one of these. He used mathematics as way of understanding science through probability and numerical data. Gallielo followed the work and ideas of Pythagoras and as a result formed a direct opposition to Aristotle.
Soon after, Political Philosophy emerged and with it so did Machiavelli. He produced a book called 'The Prince' and within it, it explained extensive and rather explicit methods in which an individual could obtain power. Unlike some of the other Philosophers, he did not seem to have much regard for the Church and often wrote methods of gaining power 'by any means'. At the time of the Renaissance, this was somewhat of a revelation, and prior to this point, the Church had been an important role in most people's lives. This book then enabled people to question issues they perhaps had not previously.
One of Machiavelli's famous quotes reads:
'It is better to be feared than loved; for fear is constant and love fickle'.
Machiavelli also followed a particular set of rules which at first I questioned, however on reflection, I actually began to understand the genius behind his ideas:
- When in conflict, one should always support the weaker side because once this is over, you will form the strongest side.
After having read this for the first time, it did seem like an unusual concept, yet once you carefully think about this you realise that you would then have more power than the (what once was) stronger side meaning you then dominate. Another rather interesting viewpoint Machiavelli held was the idea that you should never be hated when in power, but you should be feared. A way in which he thought this was possible was by closely following one rule. This was to never take an individuals land. He thought it was bettter to kill a loved one, as he believed the theory that an individual was more likely to recover from a death of a loved one than the loss of inheritance. This I found raised some dark humour when understanding his logic, however, like earlier, upon reflection I began to realise the sheer genius behind this.
'The Prince' written by Machiavelli
Rene Decartes was the final Philosopher mentioned during the lecture and he too holds a very interesting viewpoint. He raises the issue of 'Cartesian Doubt' also known as 'Dualism'. This philosopher was a follower of Plato and Pythagoras and believed that Aristotle's theory contained a lot of errors. He, much like myself, enjoyed lie in's and considered this the best time of day to think. He travelled around the world to various different countries after he had finished his education and he came to discover that depending where you are the habits of people change. Decartes came to the conclusion that he could not rely on anything carrying an example and as a result would completely dismantle his mind and start afresh. This is the beginning of 'Cartesian Doubt'. This concept basically refers to the certainty of our surroundings. For example, How can we trust that our knowledge is true?
Currently, I am sitting at my desk writing this blog entry, but how do I know for sure know that is what I am actually doing? I'm relying on my senses to understand that but what if my senses are faulty? For example, have your senses ever confused you?
An example that I am sure you can relate too, is leaving some washing on the line at night time. When you go outside to get the clothes, you touch them and are unsure whether they are wet or cold. This could be a flaw within your senses. Decartes even suggested that there could be an evil demon within us trying to trick us with what we think we know.
This process of constantly questioning our surroundings meant that everything that contained even the smallest doubt was dismissed until Decartes was left with only himself and his mind. When thinking about this, he realised 'I think, therefore I am'. This basically meant that because Decartes knew he was thinking, that was one of the only things in the world he knew for certain existed. He then held the view that the human body was completely separate to the human brain and this is what is known as 'Dualism'.
Decartes saw himself as imperfection, however, he believed that God was perfection. Decartes did not end there....oh no...
He questioned 'How can imperfection know about perfection?' and came to the conclusion that somebody must have 'installed' this perfect form in his mind.This is how he claimed to have proved God's existence.
I have to say that although all of the philosophers that I was taught about hold different and very interesting view points, Rene Decartes or Machiavelli are my personal favourites. This was mainly because they took me the longest to try and understand but once this was achieved, I really respect the genius involved within their work.
Much more information regarding the philosophers is found in 'The History of Western Philosophy' written by Bertrand Russell which I am finding interesting and the lecture compliments this. I am finding this module both mind boggling and interesting, and I am keen to learn, write and even read more!!
For now, watch this space.
'
