Daily Archives: June 24, 2020

Encyclopedia, Science

Science/Daniel

Leave a comment

Natural Science, being one giant part in the realm of science and philosophy, contains more than mathematics and physics. According to Wikipedia, natural science is “concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation”. (Wikipedia: Natural Science)

The eldest examines of physics perhaps starts from astronomy, where ancient people try to predict the motion of Sun, Moon, and stars. Astronomical charts were found in Senemut’s tomb in ancient Egypt (Wikipedia: Ancient Egypt); events were linked with stars by ancient Mesopotamian priests (Wikipedia: Mesopotamia); countless attempts to recording the dates based on stars were made. It is interesting to notice that these events related to physics are often religious rituals, trying to calculate the god’s creations, which eventually became physics. Of course, “the main goal of physics is to understand how the universe behaves” (Wikipedia: Physics).

Early physicists are also regarded as philosophers. According to Wikipedia, “a philosopher is one who challenges what is thought to be common sense, doesn’t know when to stop asking questions, and reexamines the old ways of thought”. (Wikipedia: Philosopher) More specifically, when we are looking into the old time philosophers, it is often interesting to link their theories to religion, or discuss their beliefs and claims towards god. In this passage, we will focus on four famous physicist/philosophers of all times: Aristotle, Leibniz, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. Each of them have a different approach to describing the world, or rather have an interesting opinion towards the prescence of God.

i. Aristotle

As perhaps the earliest and one of the most unknown polymaths and as a student of Plato, Aristotle proposed a lot of interesting theories in various different regions. We will be focusing on his approach of explaining the world in the realm of physics (or rather, natural science), and analyze the more “religious” part of his theory.

In his On the Heavens, Aristotle claims that the universe is composed basically by five different elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Ether (or Aether). These five elements exist in the shape of spheres, or spherical shells. The Earth, being the ground on which we live, is mostly constituted by the element Earth in a near-sphere shape. This sphere is then surrounded by a spherical shell of Water, and then a spherical shell of Air. Oceans and rivers exist in the layer of Water, while Air surrounds everything. Outside Air, a new shell of Fire exists, where comets and meteors are believed to originate from. Finally, a huge shell of Ether, called the Heaven, where the stars, the Sun, and other celestial bodies move. Here, the Ether is also called the “divine substance”. (Wikipedia: Aristotle) In Greek mythology, it was thought to be “the pure essence that the gods breathed, filling the space where they lived, analogous to the air breathed by mortals” (Wikipedia: Ether) This is one direct proof to the belief of Aristotle towards god and divination.

diagram showing Aristotle’s opinion on the universe. Graph made by author.

More information on Aristotle’s physics: Aristotle also created many qualitative claims focused on the motion of objects, which are mostly correct in a small area of application. More on this topic and contrast could be found in the following passage I wrote: C:\Users\Gebuyuan\Desktop\HGmlDroTMYfTXc62 (3).mht

ii) Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz. Picture from Google Pictures.

As another polymath, Leibniz was more well known in his Leibniz Notationcontribution in the field of mathematics and calculus. However, he also proposed an interesting “monad theory” which talks about the essence of life, creatues, reality, and god. We will delve into this theory a little deeper and examine the “monads” Leibniz defined.

“Monads” are like atoms proposed by Democritus according to Leibniz: they are uncuttable and unseperable. They are also “not matter”, because matter is always splittable. Monads are also enclosed in their own world, unable to interact with other monads. In fact, they “comes into existence when the world was made, and can neither disintegrate nor grow”, except one single monad. And this single monad is “GOD”.

Leibniz states that this “god monad” somehow “preprogrammed” all other monads so that after they are created, they can run seperately but synchronized. Each creature/life is controlled by dominating monads, which are assumed to have minds; physical forces and other substances “result from them”. In fact, the world itself is a “coordinated dream” of different monads predesigned by god.

In this theory, Leibniz proposed a logical approach to the regular execution of the world related to “god”. This is also a typical approach trying to model the world created by physicists.

iii) Conclusion

In this passage, we talked about four scientists’ relationship between god or religion. In early times, people tend to believe in god more; in recent years, seems like “religion” is substituded by science more. However, I want to point out that science cannot solve every problem; science does not propose values and ethics; and science is also based on induction. We should not regard “religion” as some sort of lie; it is also a precious part in humanity.

References

Wikipedia, Natural Science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Ancient Egypt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Mesopotamia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Aristotle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Ether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element). Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Leibniz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Isaac Newton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Albert Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Encyclopedia, Science

Plato and Aristotle’s scientific method

1 Comment

What is the history of Science? How did we take our first steps toward science, or where is the starting point of science? Since people have systematically made knowledge about the world for millennia, there’s no specific starting point. But a reasonable place to start is ancient Greece, which the cornerstone of scientific inquiry belongs to. The Greeks practice Natural philosophy, meaning “self-conscious inquiry to nature”.Few individuals have influenced the world and many of today’s thinkers, like Plato and Aristotle. Both of them contribute to the great history of Science after Socrates.

  Socrates held that knowledge comes from asking questions. By constantly asking questions so that students can steadily break down a big problem into the smaller part which they can test the hypothesis against is called the Socratic method. This method provides what is wrong which narrows down the possibilities of what might be right. However, Socrates’s method inspired his greatest legacy, his student Plato, and his student’s student Aristotle. Both of them were inspired by Socratic’s method, but they arrived at some different conclusions.

Plato’s Theory of Forms asserts that all things that exist in reality are mere representations of perfect metaphysical constructs which he called the Forms. The reality is the material stuff we see and interact with daily. The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space, which exist beyond reality. “Even though the Forms are abstract, that doesn’t mean they are not real. The Forms are more ‘real’ than any individual physical objects. To Plato, it’s like the essence of all things. So, concepts like Redness, Roundness, Beauty, Justice, or Goodness are Forms. In other words, how do you know a chair is “ a chair”, that ’s because it has the chariness of chair. Individual objects like a red book, a round ball, a beautiful girl, a just action, or a good person reside in the physical realm and are simply different examples of the Forms.”(study.com) He separates the sensible world with the intelligible world because he holds that only the forms could be objects of knowledge and the ultimate truth. Plato would come up with a theory first, then try to fit data into his theory. “The intelligible truths could be known with the certainty of geometry and deductive reasoning. What could be observed of the material world, however, was by definition imperfect and deceptive, not ideal. The Platonic way of knowledge, therefore, emphasized reasoning as a method, downplaying the importance of observation.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

  Compare to Plato’s idealistic of abstraction, Aristotle ’s philosophy made more common sense for today’s science. His idea is based on empirical evidence: he observed the world then came up with a theory that explains it since he believes Empiricism is the starting point .“Science (epistêmê), for Aristotle, is a body of properly arranged knowledge or learning—the empirical facts, but also their ordering and display are of crucial importance.”(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Besides, Aristotle’s method also required to be systematic logical to be right.“Aristotle’s inductive-deductive method used inductions from observations to infer general principles, deductions from those principles to check against further observations, and more cycles of induction and deduction to continue the advance of knowledge.”(Wikipedia) This method is very similar to what we do today. We derived a conclusion based on observation and data to support, and by using some of our general knowledge or common sense to further observe and generate a conclusion.

  Plato’s theory is based on senses and reasoning, whereas Aristotle preferred to have observation and experiment. Both of them have contributed to the great history of science, and how we think in our world today. The two theories can both generate a well fit distinctive but reasonable conclusion through a different process. But Aristotle’s theory can be convincingly applied to the modern world.

Aesthetic, Encyclopedia

Aristotle’s​ Aesthetics

Leave a comment

Throughout the ages, art has been an essential part of our life. It could be found anywhere in the history of mankind. However, art has also been a popular topic among philosophers. Many great minds have theorized on the nature of art. One of the most significant thinkers who tackle the nature of art is Aristotle.

  Aristotle followed one of the most emphatic thinkers to comment on the nature of art, which was his teacher Plato. Nevertheless, most of the philosophers, just like Plato and Aristotle, they were forced to establish a theory of art based heavily on their metaphysical views about the nature of the world. Therefore, to understand Aristotle’s perspective towards art, understanding his metaphysics is crucial.

  Plato believed that all things that exist in reality are mere representations of perfect metaphysical constructs which he called the Forms. He separates the sensible world with the intelligible world because he holds that the intelligible world is the only reality. But Aristotle suggests that such separation removes any intelligibility and meaning to the world. According to him “the intelligibility is present in every being and everything. The world consists of substances. The substance can be either matter or form, or a compound of both”. 

  Since they possess their metaphysics, their perspective towards the notion of art differs. “For Aristotle, the notion of form was a part of all matter and the distinction between the form and the actual substance that made up an object was merely an intellectual one.”This bears a relation to art because for both Plato and Aristotle art is an imitation of the actual world (Palmer, pp 447-452). However, although they both thought of art as an imitation, they interpret the nature of this imitation in opposing manners. “While Plato condemns art because it is in effect a copy of a copy – since reality in imitation of the Forms and art is then imitation of reality – Aristotle defends art by saying that in the appreciation of art the viewer receives a certain “cognitive value” from the experience (Stumpf, p 99).” he saw it as useful. He believed our body needs to experience a full range of emotions to stay in balance. He argued that, if we have not been sad in a while, or had a good adrenaline rush, we can start to crave those feelings. Art can step into our life and give the experience of emotion. When we finally experience the sensations we feel a pleasurable release that Aristotle called “Catharsis”. The theory resolves a little conundrum in an aesthetic that’s known as the “Problem of Tragedy”. This is the weird puzzle of why people would be paid to walk into a theatre and are prepared to cry for two hours. This is an example of people who made themselves express strong negative emotions in a safe context and the emotional purge that comes with the experience of satisfied people. The purging of the emotions “through pity and fear”, that is accomplished by a tragedy.

Aristotle doesn’t only disagree with Plato about the notion of art. Compared to his teacher, Aristotle proceeded to a more serious investigation of aesthetics phenomena to develop by scientific analysis certain principles of beauty and art. “In his treatises on poetry and rhetoric he gives us, along with a theory of these arts, certain general principles of beauty; and scattered among his other writings we find many valuable suggestions on the same subject. He seeks (in the Metaphysics) to distinguish the good and the beautiful by saying that the former is always in action (`en praxis) whereas the latter may exist in motionless things as well (`en akinetois.)”( art andpopularculture.com) While good is derived only by taking a certain action, beauty could be derived from nothing. Aristotle has also stated his theory of beauty in the Metaphysic“The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree” (The Complete Works of Aristotle Barnes ed., volume 2, 1705, 1078a36)” This is which he commented to be the absence of all lust or desire in the pleasure it bestows.

  As a philosopher and an aesthetician, Aristotle had thought a lot about art. Although he maintains that art is an imitation, he holds that art is useful since it contributes to the share of negative emotions. He argued about the standard of beauty and art and gives inspiration to descendants. 

Encyclopedia, Ethics

Ethics/Daniel

Leave a comment

In this passage, I would like to address certain values and ethics of people in this world crammed with “the Internet”. I would link several references to different western philosophers along my analysis.

The first value I would like to address is people’s denial of their ability of identifying truth. Nowadays, we live in a complicated environment. Information feeds we get is not only coming in faster (leaving us less time to understand and consider all problems), but also is personalized. Online applications and websites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Weibo, are constantly pushing contents that they think you tend to watch. This causes a “polarization” in the knowledge we get.

From the very beginning, philosophers are talking about the topic of “reality” or “skepticism”. According to Wikipedia, philosophical skepticism questions “the possibility of certainty in knowledge”. (Wikipedia: Philosophical skepticism) Along with Descartes’s mind-body dualism which states that “the mind and body are distinct and separable” and the doubt that “he has a body or not” (Wikipedia: Mind-body Dualism), people feel that there is no “objective truth”. As Protagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher states, “man is the measure of all things”.

“Man is the measure of all things” by Protagoras. Picture from Bing Pictures.

With all these opinions existing, people tend to think “because I have my own perceptions and understandings, everything is biased, and no subjective truth exists”. This eventually leads to “we don’t need to try hard identifying whether the news are true or fake; we might not be in a physical world”. However, as Michael Lynch kindly pointed out in his TED talk, “we should agree that we are living in a common reality, and ignoring it could get you hurt”. (Xigua Video)

All these evidences lead to my conclusion: in the modern world, people constantly use ideas like “skepticism” as an excuse to deny their ability of identifying truth. In fact, “skepticism” no longer stay as a critical thinking attitude to all things; it became an umbrella shielding you from trying to figure out the truth. Even definitions of words we use are based on common knowledge and the authority. Denying to identify truth does not help, as they cannot change the fact that we are living in “a common reality”.

But how to solve this problem, and somehow “correct” people’s values? In his talk, Michael Lynch pointed out that “people should find out new active ways of gaining knowledge”. Only when we are constantly thriving for knowledge, we can burst through our “information bubble”, not letting the term “fake news” become the meaning of “new that I don’t like”. By gaining more truth, we can hear to other’s opinions and learn how to think critically.

The second topic I want to talk about is the anonymosity of the Internet. When the Internet gives us access to the whole world without having to leave our house, it also block off the opportunity of us meeting with friends face to face. It also opens up a portal to the vast world of voices, a place where you can easily get hurt.

Moreover, anonymosity does not just mean you can safely view contents on the internet without being tracked; it also means you do not need to pay responsibility. Plato, an Athenian philosopher during the classic period of ancient Greece, told an interesting story in his description of Utopia. In his Republican, a story of the “Ring of Gyges” was told: “A cave was revealed in a mountainside where he[a shepherd] was feeding his flock… he discovered [a] ring [that] gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it. He then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, he used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself.” (Wikipedia: Ring of Gyges) This was great piece of evidence on how bad in ethics could a human be when he gains anonymosity. Even the famous Lord of the Rings series alluded this, describing all but those who have a strong and simple heart could withstand the Ring of Power, which gives its wearer invisibility as well.

Another example of what bad things people could do without being watched was proposed by Hobbes. In his Leviathan, Hobbes states: “[When there is no political community, ] there is no industry, … navigation, … commodities, … knowledge of the face of the earth, … and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” As a philosopher exploring social contracts, he clearly states without people watching over, the society will be chaotic. (Wikipedia: Hobbes)

Of course, our country is not letting this happen. Officers and legalists clearly understands that when no rule is present, this anonymosity will cause great damage to the peace of society. According to Luo Xiang, a famous teacher in the realm of laws, put forth the following argument: “Human is an end; human is not a means.” Not only do the laws of the country protect those who are harmed, we also need to learn to respect others: “A person who respects others’ reputation will not insult others.” (Bilibili)

Luo Xiang’s quoted sentence, in chinese. Picture captured from original video.

My approach to this problem is also very easy to understand: gaining more knowledge. Just as the book Calculus Made Easy states, “people quarrel because they can’t argue”. When trolls are cursing and sending messages on the Internet, their words and phrases are no more than stereotypes; they cannot argue for themselves and become more logic because they can’t. Lack of knowledge leads to lack of fear; lack of knowledge also leads to a lack of respect.

Summarization: In the passage we discussed about two different values being deteriorated in the Internet era: the ability of identifying truth, and the respect to others. The approach, in my opinion, is fairly simple: we need more knowledge, not for defending ourselves, but to make us a better person in this era.

References

Wikipedia: Skepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Mind-body Dualism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Protagoras. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Xigua Video: (TED) Finding truth on the Internet. https://www.ixigua.com/i6766829672790491656/?logTag=nAZu9ycviVFYnCTTFIH-a. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Ring of Gyges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Hobbes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Bilibili: Discussion on Internet Trolls. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rk4y1R7id. Cited June 24th, 2020.

P.S. Sorry again for the missing of deadlines. I was constantly not sure about my final topic and thesis, and I didn’t contact you frequent enough…

Encyclopedia, Reality

Stoicism’s ideas on Reality

1 Comment

Stoicism is “an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.” According to the Oxford Dictionaries.

Stoicism regards the universe as a beautiful, orderly and rational whole. Human is a part of the universe, a little spark. Stoic believe that everyone is a small part of the universe. Every individual is a small “microcosmos” and it is an epitome of the “macrocosmos”. I think that is very interesting angle of looking at the relationship between us and the cosmos, and it is also very romantic and poetic. 

The stoicism in ancient times was a monist and a materialist, which means that they thought that all existing things were made up of one substance. Of course, their precise definition of this “thing” is not correct. Stoicism believes that the basic component of the universe is something they call “vitality”. It has four forms: cohesion, which unifies a physical object; nature, which makes all things become vibrant and alive; soul, which gives animal perception and movement; reason, which gives reason and rationality to human beings. For example, rocks have cohesion, but none of the other three. Plants are both cohesion and nature, but they don’t have soul or reason. Animals have the first three, but not including reason. Human has all four. This is all reality but the existence of things has different forms. 

Stoic emphasizes obedience to the fate, to be comfortable in their position in society, to be indifferent, so that only in this way can we reach happiness. “Throughout each identical phase, every event is predetermined, governed by fate and entirely for the good”. I strongly agree with this theory because I always believed that there is an ultimate law of nature or fate, and with everything being predetermined we just have to live with the flow. Indifference to all events no matter is it good or evil. In addition to the Stoic’s view, I also believe that fate will always take the middle way, and I think I am influenced by Daoism. “The divine plan will work itself out no matter what, and there’s nothing anyone can do about that, but what one can do is react to events in the right way, which is to say harmoniously, virtuously, in tune with the flow of things.” 

Stoic also believes that the conventional goods such as health, wealth, fame and social standing are good depending on situations, but only virtue is good no matter what. The conventional goods are preferable – in Stoic terminology, “preferred indifference” – but whether and when we acquire them is not up to us but up to the divine plan. 

The author of the book Meditation – Marcus Aurelius, a stoic philosopher – also gave interesting explanations about life and death. Even if you want to live three thousand years, or ten times as much, remember: you can’t lose another life than what you are living now, and you can’t live another life than what you are losing. The present is the same for everyone and same as the lost; it should be clear that a short moment is everything that is lost. You cannot lose what you don’t have. And, everything is always the same and keep repeating, whether you see the same thing repeated in 100 years, 200 years, or indefinitely, there is no difference. the longest-lived and those who will die soonest lose the same things. 

We should not be afraid of death, rather, we should even welcome the arrival of death and live towards the death. Suppose that you are now dead, your life is over, and the remaining years will only be regarded as the continuation of your life, and you should live according to the way of nature. Every act, every word and every thought of yours should be like a person who would die at any time. Accept death, it is just like how you anticipate a child’s emergence from its mother’s womb; and that’s how you should await the hour when your soul emerges from its compartment.

Bibliography:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stoicism

Meditation by Marcus Aurelius

Encyclopedia, Politics

Whether Karl Marx’s Political Philosophy Is Fit to Modern Society/Jacob

Leave a comment

Introduction

In Modern life, we can basically divide the world’s political system into capitalism and socialism. Although a country politics sometimes complex than the system. For example, China’s one country, two systems and It combines market economy and socialist social architecture. It would be too complicated to look at it from a sociological and political perspective. My thesis will not discuss in this way. I will briefly demonstrate the idea of Karl Marx’s political philosophy. Then to analyze whether it is suitable for today’s society from a historical perspective.

What is Karl Marx’s political philosophy

Karl Marx’s political philosophy always been called as Marxism. Which a thoughtful understanding on politics, economy and sociology. His political philosophy, socialism, or communism, is often placed on the opposite side of capitalism. He first published his idea in “The Communist Manifesto”（1840） by him and his friend Friedrich Engels. His views provide a new ideology for the world. “The whole of his work is a radical critique of philosophy, especially of G.W.F. Hegel’s idealist system and of the philosophies of the left and right post-Hegelians. It is not, however, a mere denial of those philosophies. Marx declared that philosophy must become reality. One could no longer be content with interpreting the world; one must be concerned with transforming it, which meant transforming both the world itself and human consciousness of it. This, in turn, required a critique of experience together with a critique of ideas.” In his era, the first industrial revolution is almost over. The modern society construct by capitalism and free markets has basically taken shape. And then comes the class struggle. In his point of view, he thinks that” the bourgeois relations of production are the last contradictory form of the process of social production, contradictory not in the sense of an individual contradiction, but of a contradiction that is born of the conditions of social existence of individuals; however, the forces of production which develop in the midst of bourgeois society create at the same time the material conditions for resolving this contradiction. With this social development the prehistory of human society ends.” In capitalism, the inequality between supply and demand is the greatest contradiction and alienation. Karl Marx thinks Society doesn’t need class. Unlike Plato’s utopia in” Res Publica” and Hegel’s idealism. Karl Marx more values materials. He was not an empiricist. He believes that the course of history does not depend on a hero or a minority, but on the majority. So there is no so-called elite in his political philosophy. His political philosophy is also highly respected by the working class. The vision of socialism is that all people are equal. Without privilege, everyone enjoys the same resources.

The rise and collapse of Soviet Union(cold war)

After Marx, Marxism brought great influence and impact to people. This new ideology is increasingly being incited to be the antithesis of capitalism and Liberal Art. After the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union inherited this ideology. “The person who originally introduced Marxism into Russia was Georgy Plekhanov, but the person who adapted Marxism to Russian conditions was Lenin.” The Soviet Union operated a planned economy, allocating resources on demand rather than free market. But the planned economy is to idealism. And based on the material enrichment and the high intellectual mindset of people.Karl Marx did not deny capitalism, he believed that when people accumulated a lot of wealth through capitalism can be transformed into socialism. Unfortunately, neither the Soviet Union nor China experienced capitalism. There was on issue both happened in Soviet Union and China. Which is Resources are not sufficient to allocate reasonably to everyone. Especially in China. At the same time, due to the closure of the media and popular culture, leading to the Soviet Union’s political ecology is relatively closed. Under Stalin, Marxism seemed to be a reason for populism and a political means of a dictator. And Soviet Union collapse in 1991 and China started to Open information and free market in 80s.

Conclusion

In Karl Marx’s idea, philosophy must have its relevance. I think the core idea of Marxism is thoughtful and inflammatory. In this complex age, every schools needs to consider a problem. That is, whether the concept can adapt to the complexity and change of society. I think that’s why the school’s ideology is going to iterate and evolve. I am a supporter of Karl Marx’s materialist view of history. I believe that every schools reflect the essential problem and thinking of that era. I think Marxism is a outdated goal of humanity and it doesn’t fit for modern society.Perhaps Marxism will fit when human morality and wealth reach high levels. But not for present.

Work Cited

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Origami Books, 2020.

Chambre, Henri, and David T. McLellan. Class Struggle. 24 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Class-struggle.

History.com Editors. “Karl Marx.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/topics/germany/karl-marx.

Aesthetic, Encyclopedia

The difference between Plato’s aesthetics and Aristotle’s aesthetics/Jacob

13 Comments

Preface

The word aesthetics is origin from the Greek word “aisthetikos” means the sensible object. In the eighteenth century it became a branch of philosophy. I agree that aesthetics has a strong relationship with sensation. Because when people talk about beauty, or to define beauty. it starts with self-perception and sensation. In linguistic way, the negative form of aesthetics is anesthetic. Which a medicine degree the sensitive of sensation. Nowadays, aesthetic is not only a topic of philosophy but also highly related with others subject. Such as architecture, design, literature. All in all, we called it art. Aesthetic is a major which discuss about art. What is beauty and what is ugly. I will briefly demonstrate the Plato’s aesthetics and Aristotle’s aesthetics and find out the difference between them.

Plato’s Aesthetics

Plato believes that art and poetry are imitations and demotions of real life. Base on Plato’s “Mimesis”. He thinks the real life is the imitation of ideal life, and the art is imitation of real life. In ancient Greece, poetry had a high status. People will sing poetry in public as a tradition. But Plato thinks poetry is untrue and immoral. He put poetry and art on the opposite side of philosophy. In his metaphysics of binary relations, art is nothing more than a simple imitation of real life. In Plato’s “Republic“He forbids poets and artists from entering his ideal country. I think Plato’s negation of art stems from the innate infection and incendiaryness of art. At the same time, some Plato’s idea are outdated in modern conception. Some neoteric philosopher such as Nietzsche and modern philosopher such as Gilles Louis René Deleuze and Jacques Derrida think that Plato’s argument of “illusion” is “Achilles Heel” which the weakness of him.

Aristotle’s Poetics

Compare to Plato’s aesthetic, Aristotle didn’t over stress the relationship between truth and illusion. But focus on the real feeling that art brings to people. He thinks that art should not be assessed by morality. What really matters is the relationships, understanding, interaction, emotions and feelings that art brings. Like Aristotle, he believed that the origin of art was imitation. But he doesn’t think art is false, or lower than reality. Aristotle thinks In poetry and tragedy, we will encounter a variety of ideas: the goal of choice, success and failure, honor and suffering, good at evil, sin and innocence. Aristotle valued the fictional nature of art. He believes that it is precisely because art is different from reality that people can appreciate the lack of attraction and pain in reality. According to Aristotle’s aesthetic concept, his “cathartic” concept was formed. It provided the foundation for ancient Greek drama.

The difference between Plato’s idea and Aristotle’s idea

Both Aristotle and Plato believed that art came from ” Mimesis.” But their attitude towards virtual is different. Plato’s attitude to virtualision is negative and immoral. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that art should not be ethically audited. What matters is the message and emotion that art conveys. I agree with Aristotle. In today’s art iteration, Aristotle’s idea is still essential to art conception.

Works cited：

Aristotle, et al. Poetics. Harvard University Press, 1999.

Kul-Want, Christopher, and Piero. Introducing Aesthetics: a Graphic Guide. Icon Books, 2014.

Aesthetic, Encyclopedia

Seana-Aesthetic-Plato and Beauty

Leave a comment

Introduction:

We all know that Plato was an great philosopher during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, and he is famous for “Republic”, and Plato also founded the Academy. Plato also has his own unique understanding of Aesthetics. In this following paper I will introduce with: “What did Plato say about Beauty? ” “Does Plato think Beauty is objective or subjective?”     

According to Plato, Beauty was an idea or Form of which beautiful things were consequence. By comparison, beauty begins in the realm of comprehensible objects, because beauty has a form. He thought that all the beautiful things have in common. Plato argues that we also have a general idea of beauty itself, that we can recognize the beauty of a person or a painting only because we have this abstract idea of beauty. This form of beauty itself is invisible, eternal, unchanging, unlike the tangible world where things grow old and lose their beauty. That is to say, people will grow old and then become ugly, but the beauty in our mind, this is not an object, so it is always beautiful in spirit.

Symposium: 

In Plato’s “Symposium” , it depicts a friendly contest of extemporaneous speeches given by a group of notable men attending a banquet. Beauty is associated with responses to love and desire, but beauty itself is positioned in the domain of the forms and the beauty of certain objects participating in the forms. Sometimes the distinctive of beauty shows the good side or the good consequences, and Plato think even its identity with “the good”. In Plato´s Symposium, it mentioned about Beauty Theory: “Beautiful is an objective quality which is more or less intensified in and exemplified by beautiful or less beautiful objects respectively. Beauty itself exists independently of the object’s relationship to a perceiver or of its being a means to some end.” 

Plato points out that in a set of beautiful things it is not just the man and the body that are beautiful. Aesthetics is not only a philosophy of beauty, but also a philosophy teaching or art theory. This is the modern understanding and understanding of aesthetic objects. In Plato’s philosophy, the question is raised in a completely different way. His aesthetics, at least, are a philosophy of art. There is no opposition between the transcendental nature of Plato’s idealism and the concept of the real phenomenon (but beyond the limits of all the senses). Truly great art appreciation, in principle, is rooted in the sensuous nature of the world. Furthermore, these features preclude the idea that the object of aesthetics is art. Plato’s aesthetics is the mythological ontology of beauty, that is, the theory of the existence of beauty, rather than the philosophy of art. Because of Plato’s original place of teaching, its beautiful expression transcends the boundaries of art and places it within the realm of the existence of the world. 

Subjective and Objective

Beauty is internal, independent of things. It becomes a beauty by sharing the existence of beauty.A beautiful thing is internal and external. Its beauty has nothing to do with the perceiver, and its beauty or ugly has nothing to do with personal evaluation. So, Is beauty subjective or objective？

Plato regarded beauty as objective in the sense that it was not localized in the response of the beholder. He thought beauty is objective, it is not about the experience of the observer. The world of Forms is “ideal” rather than material; Forms, and beauty, are non-physical ideas for Plato. He think that  it is a feature of the “object,” and not something in the mind of the beholder.

Compare to some Subjectivist views, many other philosopher, such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume. They thought that was aware that subjective judgments of taste in art engender debates that do actually lead to agreement on questions of beauty. 

Reference：

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_(Plato)

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/

Encyclopedia, Politics

Machiavelli and Politics during the Renaissance

1 Comment

Introduction

The Renaissance is a period between the 14th century and 16th century, when the classics are once again valued by people, religions reform, humanism is celebrated, and the bourgeoisie is standing against feudalism and medieval theology.  Its influence is reflected in art, architecture, philosophy, literature, music, science and technology, politics, religion and many other aspects. The political thought of the Renaissance period began a new era of western political thought in history. Machiavelli, a political thinker and philosopher in this period, laid the foundation of modern political science and separated it from ethics and medieval theology for the first time. This article will specifically talk about the political and political philosophy thoughts during the Renaissance. 

Main Social Ideological Trend & Initial to the Political Thoughts

The core of the mainstream social ideological trend is humanism. The core of humanism spirit is to affirm human value and dignity by focusing on “human” rather than “God” or “deity”. The purpose of life is to pursue happiness in real life, promote the liberation of personality, oppose the theological thought of ignorance and superstition, and think that man is the creator and master of real life. 

Based on the special political structure of Italy in the late Middle Ages, some scholars say that the unique local social atmosphere provided the necessary conditions for Renaissance to start in Italy. In the early modern times, Italy is not a unified political entity, but consisted of city states and territories. Italy in the 15th century has the highest level of urbanization in Europe. When bishop Otto (1114-1158) come to Italy in the 12th century, he has noticed a new form of political and social organization, and observes that Italy seems to begin to break away from the feudalism system, taking merchants and commerce as its social basis. Related to this is the anti-monarchy idea expressed in the mural “Allegory of Good and Bad Government”. This famous early Renaissance mural is located in Siena, through this painting, the painter expresses his strong desire for fairness, justice, republicanism and good governance. 

Politics: Break out of Theology

At the end of the 14th century, with the development of urbanization, politics and economy, a new class – the bourgeoisie– emerged. They call for the establishment of a unified monarchy, elimination of feudal separated power, establishment of a unified nation and formation of a national market to meet the needs of the development of capitalism economy. Underthis situation, the political thought of Western Europe emerges new ideas: thinkers began to observe the state and law from the perspective of human, thinking rationally, and individualism began to appear; thinkers began to talk about the establishment of centralized authority monarchy; equality theories about the equality of disciples and religious conferences within the church has also started to develop. But at that time, the bourgeoisie was still in its formative stage, its strength was not strong enough, and it did not put forward the idea of natural human rights. They opposed the church, but did not get rid of the feudal theology totally.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in 1469 in Florence, Italy, died in 1527. He was one of the most influential political thinker in the Renaissance. Machiavelli  was the first thinker who freed political science or theory from religion and morality. He was not interested in high moral or religious principles, rather, his main concern was power and the practical or political interests of the state. He advocates the supremacy of the state and takes state power as the basis of law. A famous work of him, The Prince, mainly discussed the way of being a good monarch, what conditions and abilities the monarch should have, and how to seize and consolidate power. Machiavelli was one of the main founders of modern political thought.Don’t get me wrong, Machiavelli never denounced virtue, morality, or religion. However, he stressed that the field of morality and religion is very different from that of politics, and for the monarch of the state, he should rule in accordance to ruling and power itself, not god’s will. 

The Prince makes a clear distinction between different types of principalities: hereditary principality, mixed principality, new principality obtained by relying on their own force and ability, new principality obtained by relying on the force of others or due to luck, civil principality and religious principality, etc. It enlightens the prince how to establish their own monarchy according to the local conditions by referring to the historical experience of other countries and combining with the actual situation of their own state. This is undoubtedly the first principle a monarch considered at the beginning of the establishment of the country. Machiavelli’s second principle for the prince to consolidate his position of power is that the prince should rely on his own ability and strength. If he does this, he will not have much difficulty in maintaining his position in the future. If any prince or politician wants to succeed in his career, he must learn the method of political rule. 

In the prince’s treatise, the political behavior and ethical behavior of the king are completely separated, and the generally accepted morality is directly denied. It believes that people must recognize that there are two methods of struggle in the world, one is the use of law and the other is the use of force. The former method is human’s unique rational behavior, while the latter is animal behavior. According to the social reality at that time, the former often made human beings unable to follow their heart, forcing people to resort to the latter. This requires that the prince must know how to use the behavior of wild animals to fight. 

Machiavelli’s theories were based on the actual situation of the world, rather an idea of how can the world function as an utopia, such as Plato’s Republic.

Influence

By the end of the 16th century, The Prince had been translated into all the major European languages and became the most important subject of heated debate in the courts. Machiavellianism is often misinterpreted, so people look down on Machiavellianism and create a term to refer to them: Machiavellianism. Nowadays, the term also suggests a cynical attitude, according to which politicians have reason to commit any tort if it is ultimately necessary.

Bibliography:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli

https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/political-thinkers/machiavelli/machiavelli-bio-life-and-political-ideas-modern-political-thought/1097

https://www.thoughtco.com/niccolo-machiavelli-1469-1527-2670474

https://baike.baidu.com/item/文艺复兴时期政治思想/3639098

https://baike.baidu.com/item/君主论/349368

Encyclopedia, Reality

Seana-Reality-Epicureans

Leave a comment

    The idea of Epicureans

Introduction

Firstly, let me briefly introduce who is Epicurus:  A major philosopher of the Hellenistic period, he is a great philosopher, and he that views worries as unnecessary and unnatural desires. if we can avoid those desire, he believes that all worries will be eliminated.  For him a good life is to avoid all the suffer, pain and torture, if we can perfectly avoided, than is the ideal of life. He largely relied upon Democritus for his materialistic and atomistic theory of nature. However, he does modify Democritus’ metaphysics because of its skeptical and deterministic implications. Epicurus founded his physics based upon Democritus but discovered that Democritus had no distinguishing ethical doctrine and, therefore, had to formulate his own objective ethics. Epicurus went on to formulate a self-centered moral philosophy in which the individual person is the realm of moral enterprise.

About Death

Secondly, the point of fear of death pretty interesting and convincing, and pretty famous. He made two arguments to against fear of death, first one is No subject of harm. In the text, he said “Death is nothing to us, when we are, death is not come, when death come, we are not. ” I think this point is really persuasive for me, we fear of death because that mentally and physically hurt, but in fact, when we are alive, death are not going to come,S but if we died, which means death came, and our body were not feel the pain, because our body is made of atoms, plus, when we died we lose all the senses of feelings, and we are not pratically feel what pain of death feels like. 

Another of his point also famous and convincing, which known as “symmetry” argument, “being death is the same as being born”, which means “I had been dead for billions and billions of year before I was born”. There is no any awareness before you born, so you are not going to feel anything else, all the things were void, so just don’t be afraid of death, they were not going to be any hurts or pain of die. Our attitude towards life and death should also be symmetrical between the two time boundaries of our existence.

About Happiness
 “Epicurus believes that the more we can limit our pleasures and desires, especially to those that are the most necessary and most natural, the more likely we are to attain sustainable pleasure and happiness.”

Where does Happiness come from? Desire. Epicurus divides pleasures and desires into natural and necessary and natural but unnecessary. He argues that the more we limit our pleasures and desires, especially those that are most necessary and natural, the more likely we are to achieve sustainable pleasures and happiness. The inner and outer conditions each person needs to survive are part of Epicurus’ view of nature and the necessary pleasures or desires. Some things are necessary for one to get rid of distractions and personal life itself. According to Epicurus, happiness is objective because it arises from the satisfaction of natural and necessary desires.

That is what Epicurus believe, many people lived in this world were not happy, the reason of that is afraid of death, it is too terrible for them, because death will kill everything. I asked some of my friends, most of them told me they afraid to lose everything. I totally agree with that, but in contrast, what do you really own? Sooner or later, your possessions will run out, your children will start new families, and your friends will have other friends. Although these things are suitable for you to have a connection with, it can’t be said that you completely own them. Everything will be out of your control. Just like what Epicurus said, “the purpose of our life is happiness”

The difference between Epicureans and Stoicism

Epicureans and Stoicism represent two different schools but founded at same time. Stoicism is the unfeeling, emotionless brute instead of Epicurean as the pleasure-loving, self-indulgent hedonist. They both appealed that we should avoid excessive pleasure and desires. But Epicureans did not advocate for excessive self-indulgence the way we may think they did, and Stoicism were not unfeeling and reject emotions. The Stoicisms were concerned with moral behavior and living according to nature, while the Epicureans were concerned with avoiding pain and seeking natural and necessary pleasure.

Reference:

https://dailystoic.com/epicureanism-stoicism/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SSH5g.i

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism