Ancient Philosophy Paper Topics Fall 2018

Ancient philosophy Paper topics Fall nd Assignment due Friday 16 Nov. Please select one topic and compose an essay of 5-â€6 double-â€spaced Number your Passages in Aristotle should be referred to by work, book number (when there is one), chapter and Bekker number (e.g., Physics II a5-â€10; more examples on the handout of 24 October). Please submit the paper to Jonathan Milad in your tutorial section and online via Turnitin. 1. In Categories ch. 2 Aristotle distinguishes between four kinds of beings with reference to two relations, being said of a subject and being in a subject. What are these relations and what are the four kinds of being distinguished with their aid? How are they related to the types of being that things said apart from combination signify, which are enumerated in chapter 4, and the most important of which, substance, is discussed in chapter 5? 2. In Physics II 8, Aristotle defends his own view, natural teleology as it has come to be called (though not by him) against an alternative upheld by opponents like Empedocles, called mechanism (though not by him or them). What is at stake in the debate? How is it related to the four causes that Aristotle distinguishes earlier in bk. II. What role does luck or chance (sometimes called the ‘automatic’) play in the mechanists’ view? What are Aristotle’s main arguments against his opponents’ mechanist position and in support of natural teleology (you may be selective focusing on some of the arguments that Aristotle presents between 198b33 – 199b33)?

Ancient Philosophy Paper Topics Fall 2018

Please select one topic and compose an essay of 5-6 double-spaced pages. Number your passages in Aristotle should be referred to by work, book number (when there is one), chapter, and Bekker number (e.g., Physics II a5-10; more examples on the handout of 24 October). Please submit the paper to Jonathan Milad in your tutorial section and online via Turnitin.

Paper For Above instruction

Choosing a compelling topic within ancient philosophy entails engaging deeply with classical texts, analyzing philosophical arguments, and presenting well-structured, critical insights. This essay explores two significant philosophical debates from Aristotle's works, emphasizing their historical context, core arguments, and implications for metaphysics and natural philosophy.

Analysis of Aristotle's Distinction of Beings in Categories

The first topic centers on Aristotle's delineation of four kinds of beings in the "Categories" chapter 2. Aristotle distinguishes beings based on two relations: being said of a subject (predicate) and being in a subject (substance or matter). The four kinds of being derived from these relations include:

1. Primary substances: individual entities that exist independently (e.g., Socrates, a particular horse).
2. Secondary substances: classes or types, such as species or genus (e.g., human, horse).
3. Accidents: qualities, quantities, or relations that inhere in substances (e.g., being white, being tall).
4. Instances of other categories: such as quantity, quality, relation, place, time, action, and passion, which are predicated of substances and accidents.

These four kinds relate to the types of being that things signify apart from combination, notably substance as the foundational being discussed in chapter 5. Aristotle maintains that primary substances are the most fundamental, serving as the basis for all predication and existence.

Aristotle's Defense of Natural Teleology vs. Mechanism

The second topic examines Aristotle's defense of natural teleology in Physics II 8 against mechanistic views espoused by thinkers like Empedocles. The debate hinges on whether natural phenomena are best explained by purpose (teleology) or by purely mechanical causes. This debate connects to Aristotle's earlier distinction of the four causes:

• Material cause: what something is made of.
• Formal cause: the form or essence of a thing.
• Efficient cause: the agent or process bringing about change.
• Final cause: the purpose or end for which a thing is done.

In mechanistic models, phenomena are explained solely by material and efficient causes, often including chance or luck as automatic factors. Aristotle critiques this view by emphasizing that certain natural processes, especially biological and cosmological, are purpose-driven, guided by intrinsic ends rather than chance. He argues that:

• Mechanism cannot account for the natural order's coherence and the apparent purpose in biological structures.
• Natural teleology offers a more comprehensive explanation for purposive features in nature.
• Chance plays a secondary role in mechanistic views, often invoked to explain irregularities without intrinsic purpose.

Aristotle’s main arguments include the idea that natural objects exhibit purpose as an inherent feature, not merely a result of chance, and that final causes are necessary to explain natural phenomena adequately. His critique underscores the importance of goal-directed processes in natural science, contrasting with the mechanists’ view of nature as a collection of automatic, purposeless interactions.

Conclusion

The examination of Aristotle’s categorization of beings and his defense of natural teleology reveals a philosophy centered on purpose and the fundamental nature of substance. These debates fundamentally shape our understanding of causality, explanation, and the nature of reality in classical metaphysics and natural philosophy, with enduring influence in modern philosophical and scientific thought.

References

• Aristotle. (1984). Categories. In J. Barnes (Ed.), Aristotle: The Categories and De Interpretation. Oxford University Press.
• Aristotle. (1984). Physics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), Physics. Oxford University Press.
• Ackrill, J. L. (1963). Categories and Interpretation in Aristotle. Clarendon Press.
• Kenny, A. (2012). Aristotle on the Virtues and Vices. The Athlone Press.
• Kiral, D. (2000). The Role of Final Causality in Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy. Ancient Philosophy, 20(2), 171-193.
• Freeland, R. (2004). Teleology and the Modern Natural World. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 21(4), 341-358.
• Heidegger, M. (2010). Aristotle: Metaphysics. Routledge.
• Ogilvie, R. M. (1950). The Philosophy of Aristotle. Cambridge University Press.
• Ross, W. D. (1958). Aristotle. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, R. (2014). The End of Nature: Teleology and Natural Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 45, 52-61.