http___livro-ensino-medio.f1cf.com.br_filosofia_hr_philosophy-74.html_1.xml
1.1 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 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
The vital importance of Forms goes far beyond the Republic. In the Platonic conception of philosophy, all interviews in abstract terms, which ultimately intended to inform our view of the non-abstract, require an object of study; Forms offer something to examine lucid and real, while the physical world, due to its ambiguity, imperfection and corruptibility, is apparently incapable of study. That is, to understand the justice of the laws of our world and the beauty of people presupposes a clear speculative knowledge of justice and beauty "in themselves." The question remains the understanding of this world. But what is the righteousness of the law and a person? We studied actually, when we study a just law? Plato calls for Forms: "participation" of the Form of Justice, a person or a law, it exists just as that person, that law. In other words, whatever is just, a person or a law, reflects the properties of the Form of Justice, as the mass of a table and the properties of this mass are really the mass of the constituent atoms. Hence why Plato argued that, for a specific set of things like Justice, Beauty, Knowledge, Courage, Equality, etc.., There should be a single form that this support to thinking about these things. Thus, by applying the concept of Justice to certain reality, the understanding of Plato, we would be applying the knowledge of the object to particular cases. Put another way: it is not because a city was devastated that local people should unite and rebuild it again. Even before the devastation the people should know what defines justice is each do their part Republic, Book IV) with a view to the common good. Thus, at a time when the city is ruined will not need any effort to raise awareness to help each other, since they knew that people do so well before the tragic event. That said, let us return to the criticisms of Aristotle. They are mainly in Chapter 9 of Metaphysics. Aristotle criticizes various points of the theory. Let us hold in common core of their analysis. The concern is that Aristotle's theory of Forms Plato leads to a very particular kind of problem: it makes the thought of an independent object of this object, ie the object is hovering above abstract concepts. This is not necessary, Aristotle thinks. He agrees, for example, that observation and comparison of different types of horse lead a group of points that define the "concept" horse. This can only be done by thought. But Aristotle did not agree when Plato imagines that there is something abstract and formal as "horsehood", regardless of the existence of particular horses. For Aristotle, we come to the concept of riding through the study of existing samples, we come to the concept of humanity me
1.1 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 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
Vitalni značaj oblika ide daleko izvan Republike. U Platonovim koncepciji filozofije, svi razgovori u apstraktnom smislu, što u konačnici namjerava obavijestiti naš pogled ne apstraktno, zahtijevaju predmet proučavanja; Obrasci ponuditi nešto da ispita lucidan i stvarna, a fizički svijet, zbog svoje neodređenosti, nesavršenosti i podmitljivost, očito nesposobna studija. To je, razumjeti pravdu od zakona našeg svijeta i ljepota ljudi pretpostavlja jasna spekulativna znanja pravde i ljepote "u sebi." Pitanje ostaje razumijevanje ovog svijeta. No, ono što je pravednost zakona i osoba? Proučili smo zapravo, kad smo proučiti samo zakon? Platon poziva na Obrasci: "sudjelovanje" u oblik pravde, osoba ili zakonom, ona postoji samo kao tu osobu, da je zakon. Drugim riječima, sve što je jednostavno, osoba ili zakon, odražava svojstva oblik pravde, kao masa za stolom i svojstva ove mase su stvarno masa sastavnih atoma. Stoga zašto Platon je tvrdio da je, za određeni skup stvari poput pravde, ljepote, znanje, hrabrost, jednakost, itd.., Tu bi trebao biti jedan oblik da je ova podrška za razmišljanje o tim stvarima. Dakle, primjenom koncepta pravde na određene stvarnosti, razumijevanje Platona, što bi se primjenom znanja o objektu na pojedinačne slučajeve. Drukčije rečeno: to nije zbog toga grad je devastiran da su lokalni ljudi trebali ujediniti i obnoviti ga opet. Čak i prije devastacije ljudi trebaju znati što određuje se pravda jedni učiniti svoj dio Republic, knjiga IV) s ciljem zajedničkog dobra. Dakle, u vrijeme kada je grad srušene neće trebati nikakav napor kako bi podigla svijest pomoći jedni drugima, jer su znali da ljudi to učinili i prije tragičnog događaja. To je rekao, vratimo se na kritike od Aristotela. Oni su uglavnom u poglavlju 9 od metafizike. Aristotel kritizira različite točke u teoriji. Neka nas držati u zajedničkoj jezgri njihove analize. Problem je u tome što Aristotelova teorija Obrasci Platona dovodi do vrlo određene vrste problema: čini misao neovisna objekt ovog objekta, odnosno objekt lebdi iznad apstraktnih pojmova. To nije potrebno, Aristotel misli. On se slaže, primjerice, da je promatranje i usporedbu različitih vrsta konja predvodio skupinu točaka koje definiraju pojam "konja". To je moguće samo uz pomoć misli. No, Aristotel nije slagao kada je Platon misli da postoji nešto apstraktno i formalno kao "horsehood", neovisno o postojanju pojedinih konja. Za Aristotela, dolazimo do koncepta vožnje kroz proučavanje postojećih uzoraka, dolazimo do pojma čovječanstva meni