http___livro-ensino-medio.f1cf.com.br_filosofia_hr_philosophy-73.html_1.xml
2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 28.1 29.1 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 34.1 35.1
The Critics of Aristotle to Plato The theory of knowledge is characterized by a preoccupation with the search for general principles for designing true beliefs about reality. This idea is present in the work of Plato and is largely, which also characterizes the thinking of Aristotle. It is with Aristotle that philosophy gains a sharper awareness about the method to be adopted when it comes to knowledge. Aristotle challenged Plato because he saw problems in a few points of explanation Platonic knowledge. Plato had reached an important thesis: to have knowledge of reality, we must find a way to give access to ideas that are immutable, that does not undergo transformations arising from the interpretation or whim. Aristotle agrees with this, but directs a criticism of Plato: to ensure certainty and validity of knowledge is not necessary to postulate a theory that duplicate the real, that is, in fact create two dimensions: the sensible and the intelligible, as did Plato. To understand and critique of Aristotle is necessary to linger a little longer in the Platonic theory that Aristotle attacks: the so-called "theory of Forms." Indeed, in works such as the Republic and Phaedo, Plato argues that knowledge is achieved only when we reach the "idea" or "concept" object. Plato used, primarily, the term "form" to refer to this idea. Plato understands by Form a core feature of a particular object or reality that keeps their components regardless of the copies of these objects found in the world or in the language. An example helps us to understand this is to think about what you understand when there was the word Justice. If we relate what people mean by justice, we have a wide range of settings, many contradictory. Furthermore, the application itself from concept to reality, to strive to be fair, is not enough for us to know exactly what is justice. Suppose you say that acting justly is to give back to someone what belongs to him (cf. Republic 331E-332C), and gives as an example the return, the owner of a gun you found. Someone may protest would have been more rational and just avoid the return because the weapon could be used to hurt someone. That's what worried Plato. Many notions we have about justice and other important concepts esfacelam themselves facing certain circumstances. Plato wondered if there would be a way to avoid this ambiguity that different situations require different notions of us this or that. He was aware that if there was a way to reach a unified vision of justice, there would never be able to understand the real essence of the concept. Worse, those who commit crimes or violence have at hand an argument to justify their actions.
2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 15.2 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 28.1 29.1 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 34.1 35.1
Kritičari Aristotela do Platona Spoznajna teorija karakterizira preokupacija potrazi za općim načelima za izradu pravih uvjerenja o stvarnosti. Ova ideja je prisutna u radu Platona, te je u velikoj mjeri, što također karakterizira razmišljanja Aristotela. To je s Aristotelom da filozofija dobiva oštriji svijesti o metodi koja će se donositi kada je u pitanju znanje. Aristotel je izazvao Platona, jer je vidio probleme u nekoliko točaka objašnjenja platonske znanja. Platon je dosegao važnu tezu: da imaju znanje o stvarnosti, moramo naći način da daju pristup idejama koje su nepromjenjivi, da ne prolaze transformacije koje proizlaze iz tumačenja ili hira. Aristotel je suglasan s tim, ali usmjerava kritiku Platona: kako bi se osigurala sigurnost i valjanost znanje nije potrebno postulat teoriju da duplicirati, zatim da je, u stvari stvoriti dvije dimenzije: razumni razumljivo, jer je Platon. Da bi razumjeli i kritika Aristotela potrebno je zadržati malo duže u Platonove teorije da je Aristotel napada: ". Teorija oblika" takozvani Doista, u djelima kao što su Republici i Fedonu, Platon tvrdi da se znanje postiže samo kada dođemo do "ideja" ili "pojam" objekt. Platon se, prije svega, pojam "obrazac" za imenovanje na ovu ideju. Platon shvaća formom jezgra je značajka određenog objekta ili realnost koja čuva svoje komponente, bez obzira na primjerke tih predmeta pronađenih u svijetu ili u jeziku. Primjer nam pomaže razumjeti ovo razmišljati o tome što razumiju kada je riječ pravde. Ako ćemo se odnositi što ljudi znači pravda, imamo širok raspon postavki, mnogi kontradiktorni. Nadalje, primjena sama od ideje do stvarnosti, da nastojimo biti fer, nije dovoljno za nas da znamo točno što je pravda. Pretpostavimo li reći da djeluju pravedno je da se vrati s nekim ono što pripada njemu Republic 331E-332C), i daje za primjer povratka, vlasnik pištolja ste pronašli. Netko može prosvjedovati bi bilo racionalnije i samo izbjeći povratak, jer oružje može se koristiti povrijediti nekoga. To je ono što brine Platona. Mnogi pojmovi koje imamo o pravosuđu i drugim važnim pojmovima esfacelam sami suočavaju s određenim okolnostima. Platon je pitao bi li uopće način da se izbjegne dvosmislenost da različite situacije zahtijevaju različite pojmove nam ovo ili ono. Bio je svjestan da ako postoji način da se dođe do jedinstvenog viziju pravde, više nikada neće biti u stanju razumjeti pravi bit koncepta. Što je još gore, oni koji su počinili zločin ili nasilje imate pri ruci argument kako bi opravdali svoje postupke.