Stettsen Olsen Class Group Discussions Assignment Our group brought a good deal of mixture in opinion to the table.

We started out the evening with a few hang ups. As we discussed, it became apparent to me and !m sure the others as well, that as people discussed wh" the" believed in a certain point a philosopher made, the" termed ideas differentl" from an"one else in the group. We would #uestion that person and as$ wh" it was that the" believed that certain point. %an" times the attac$ would come on strong and then subside as both individuals reali&ed that the" believed the same thing. 'he" termed things differentl" and in their manners of spea$ing misunderstood each other so much that the" believed themselves to be on completel" different sides of an argument. On the first night, both Cassie and (ric were defending )lato. Cassie!s favorite part of )lato!s metaph"sics and (pistemolog" was his *Divided +ine., 'he main thing that she li$ed about it was the wa" it diagrammed opinion from $nowledge. She found that this answered the #uestions !What is $nowledge-! and !What is realit"-! ver" well. have to agree with the epistemolog" side of )lato!s Divided line, but where disagree is )lato!s forms, which are mentioned in the metaph"sics side. At first (ric came out swinging in favor of the forms. (ric argued that forms do exist and that it is from the forms that we can identif" things that loo$ slightl" different, but are never the less, identifiable ob.ects. We then as$ed him about what he thought about the realm of the forms. /e at first answered that he believed that it existed. After we had gone around the room (ric retracted that statement and said that he believed more along the lines of Aristotle in that aspect. )lato!s dualism was to much for him. What intrigued (ric more than most was )lato!s /ierarch" of being and $nowledge. (ric was impressed with the difference between uncritical impressions and pure understanding. , m"self am also impressed with this. On the night we discussed ethics, Augustine was supported b" Cassie. Augustine, she pointed out, believed in faith and that from faith one could live a good life. Good comes from believing in

something greater. 0aith holds one accountable to the greater good the" believe in for their actions. f people had faith and believed in the greater good, the" would do good. 'his is something we all lac$ toda". 'hese are .ust a few points that Cassie made. t made me wish that had come to the table with Augustine as m" argument. was completel" persuaded that he had the best ethics. 'hese statements not onl" appl" to the pious people, but to all who wish to live a better life. )eople do do good if the" have hope and faith for something better that will come of it. 1elsie chose David /ume for the first discussion and %artin +uther 1ing 2r for the second. She believed that /ume left all philosoph" in the waste land. disagree with this, simpl" because even if we are .ust a bundle of perceptions at that moment, for that moment there must be laws that appl" and a wa" that bundle of perceptions got there. So to sa" that we can!t prove an"thing because our imagination ma$es up the rest, believe is a flawed philosoph". %artin +uther 1ing 2r has a wa" of ma$ing us thin$ about what our moral obligations are. /e said that good means e#ual good ends and bad means e#ual bad ends. agree with this, though don!t feel that this philosopher ever answered an" of the serious #uestions of moralit". do believe that he did a good .ob of assessing the problems in his current time. %egan came supporting 'homas A#uinas both nights. 'he ideas that she tal$ed about in the second discussion were the ones that hit me the most. (ven though Cassie was arguing on behave of Augustine, who in m" opinion is the christian opposite of A#uinas as far as faith and reason goes, the two seemed to believe in a few points here and there from both philosophers. thin$ the" agreed that a little of both philosophers would be ideal. %" favorite point that %egan made was that faith and reason go together. Who sa"s science and God are enemies- 2ust because we can prove how something is done, doesn!t mean we $now who did it. thought that was an excellent argument. 'o answer the #uestions of metaph"sics and epistemolog", 2on chose Descartes. 2on believed that /ume had no real impact on Descartes! Cogito. 'he Cogito is a solid argument and can not be argued with. One has to thin$ to be. 2on also said that "ou can!t reall" prove an"thing further than that.

personall" believe that 2on!s true hero was Socrates who he revered in the second discussion. Socrates taught of moral virtue and true virtue. /e was $now as the *)h"sician of the Soul., /e as$ed the deep #uestions and was more concerned with what was in a person. 2on said, * t!s what!s inside that counts. 'he ps"che is to revealed. !3o bod" can do harm to a good man.! 4ou can!t hurt what!s on the inside, what!s important, what a man is., /e caused people to reall" thin$. Socrates stated that virtue is wisdom. /e was willing to die for this virtue and wisdom. 0or both discussions presented Aristotle. Aristotle believed in science and what could be proven. strongl" believe in the Aristotle!s 3aturalism up until it applies to God. Aristotle said that ever"thing consists of the natural world. *3ature follows orderl", discoverable laws., pg. 567 Aristotle!s metaph"sics intrigue me. , li$e Aristotle, had a hard time with )lato8s Dualism. en.o" the the definition the boo$ gives of Aristotle!s definition of form. *0rom the Gree$ word for essence 9ousia:, that which is in matter and ma$es a thing what it is; can be abstracted from matter but cannot exist independentl" of matter., %atter can be a variet" of substances, but it is form that gives it shape and purpose. After the first to Causes we have the third which answers the #uestion how something came to be. 3aturall" we then as$ *wh" is this ob.ect there-, which is the fourth Cause. 'o me this ma$es sense. 'hat!s how see the world around me. When we appl" the four Cause to ourselves we get #uestions of ethics. We start as$ing *Wh" are we here and what purpose do we have-, +oo$ing bac$ now wish would have chosen Augustine for the discussion on ethics, but Aristotle gives good insight as well. Aristotle!s (ntelech" states that ever"thing has it!s end within itself. We have potential and it is nature and environment that stops our growth. We are happ" when we are reaching our potential and most happ" when we can reach our full potential. /appiness is being full" aware, vital, awa$e, ta$ing the right action in accordance with reason. don!t feel that this full" answers the #uestions of what is right and wrong, but it gives a good recipe for how to be happ". 'he Application of the %ean brings balance to one!s life and can help one ma$e decisions that will bring one to happiness. believe that to be trul"

happ" one must loo$ to others and ma$ing sure that the" are happ" as well. also believe that we have a higher purpose, which Aristotle doesn!t address. /e does, in m" opinion, provide the best definition for living the high life. At the end of both nights had one overall thought. As we sat there and debated which philosophers gave the best answers to which #uestions, reali&ed that the" were all so different "et man" had the same underl"ing ideas and #uestions. personall" showed up both da"s with it in m" head that, Aristotle was the philosopher who said it best. n the end found that couldn!t pic$ which philosopher agreed with most. All had great ideas and some covered ground that others hadn!t and vise<versa. All of them have offered great *wisdoms, for us to thin$ about. 0rom them we can answer the #uestions of life. 0rom this !ve learned that there must be a Absolute +aw that sorts out opinion from fact. 'he philosophies all differ in there reasoning and conclusions. As thin$ about what do and don!t agree with start to build m" own philosoph". 'hat must be the nature of philosoph", to change, expand, and search for the ultimate ob.ectivit".