In six pages this paper discusses substance and causality from the perspectives of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies. Four sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: LM1_TLCPlAri.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
compares the two concepts, one finds that Aristotles concrete, scientific theories are more relevant than Platos deductive and abstract ideology. Bibliography lists 4 sources. TLCPlAri.rtf
SUBSTANCE AND CAUSALITY: ARISTOTELIAN THEORIES MORE RELEVANT THAN PLATONIC CONJECTURE by (c) October 2001 paper properly!
Examining the relevant worthiness of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy requires one to assess the fundamental values of both approaches. Indeed, Aristotle may have been Platos "most illustrious pupil" (Greek
Philosophy), however, he did not share his instructors view of substance and causality. When one compares the two concepts, one finds that Aristotles concrete, scientific theories are more relevant
than Platos deductive and abstract ideology. Aristotle believed that people who waste time believing or fearing that which is untrue could not
possibly be happy; as such, they could change the course of this careless habit and start dwelling upon reasonable thought. If Aristotle thought this could be taught into a
habit, he undoubtedly felt the opposite could be true: that wastefulness was nothing but a habit as well. For it was also said that one can easily recognize in
an educated mind the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it; Aristotle taught that all thought takes a positive, logical form and, thus, can only lead to happiness.
He believed that the structure of a proposition or an argument was the basis of all logical form. Aristotle felt he could learn everything there was to know about
reasoning, about all things that had a base of knowledge or logic. He applied this theory to every topic as intensely as though it was a problem in mathematics,