PHI 341 – History of Ancient Philosophy Exam 2 – Aristotle & Hellenistic Thinkers Part I – Short Answer (8 points each) Answer all of the following questions with a short (5-8 sentence) response

Subject:PhilosophyPrice:0 Bought3

Share With

PHI 341 – History of Ancient Philosophy Exam 2 – Aristotle & Hellenistic Thinkers

Part I – Short Answer (8 points each)

Answer all of the following questions with a short (5-8 sentence) response. 

 

1)            What does the term “hylomorphism” mean in relation to Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphys-ics?  Explain how this represents a sharp break between Aristotle and Plato.

 

The term “hylomorphism”, or hylomorphic approach, in relation to Aristotle’s Physics and Met-aphysics is his belief that every natural being is made up of primary matter and substantial form. As he contends that there is no being without matter and form in a unity. This being the separation between Plato an Aristotle, as Plato posited that there is form without matter. Whereas Aristotle claimed that there is no such thing a form without matter or matter without form, as unformed matter cannot exist, it must have form to be a thing and that form must consist of matter. Thus, while they are separable in thought, like the heads to tails side of a coin, in reality they are always interconnected, similar to the coin.  As you cannot separate the form from the material.

 

2)            Explain what each of Aristotle’s “four causes” would be for a batch of chocolate chip cookies.

 

The first cause is the material cause, the physical properties of the being, thus the first cause of the cookie batch would be its ingredients as they are what makeup the cookie. The second cause is the formal cause, which is the structure of a being, thus this would be the recipe for the cookies as it takes the ingredients and turn them into a structured thing. The third cause is the efficient cause, this being the person or agent which brings this change about. So that would be the person baking the cookies as they’re getting the ingredients, following the reci-pe, and forming the cookies. Finally, the final cause, which is the purpose for its being. Thus, the purpose of the cookies being made is that they may be eaten and enjoyed.

 

 

3)            What are the different kinds of/parts of souls described by Aristotle in On the Soul, and how are they distinguished?  

 

4)            Pick one specific virtue discussed by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics and define it in terms of its associated vices.

 

5)            The Greek term “ataraxia” plays a fairly central role in Hellenistic and Roman philosophical thought after Aristotle.  What does this term mean, and how does it feature in the Epicurean, Stoic, and Skeptical schools of thought we have encountered?

 

6)            Epicureanism is generally regarded as a type of “egoistic hedonism.”  What does this mean, and how might this be misinterpreted by those who are only superficially acquainted with what Epicureanism/egoistic hedonism entails?

 

7)            Sextus Empiricus seems keenly aware of a potential criticism of Skepticism, namely, that deny-ing the possibility of knowledge seems to, ironically, be a form of dogmatism of its own – one where what is dogmatically believed is that no true, capital-K Knowledge can ever be acquired.  Explain how he avoids this criticism. 

 

8)            You are about to take an important exam and you notice that the person next to you is visibly anxious and upset.  You have 30 seconds to say something to them before the exam starts.  What would a Stoic say to the student if they were in your position?

 

 

Part II – Short Essay (12 points each)

Choose any three of the following prompts and respond to it in a short (300-500 word) essay

 

1)            In Metaphysics, Aristotle offers an historical reconstruction of how past philosophers have stumbled upon many of the “four causes,” but none managed to adequately give an account of them all.  What are these “four causes,” and which of Aristotle’s predecessors does he cred-it with the discovery and development of each?

 

2)            Aristotle discusses several specific virtues and their accompanying vices in his Nicomachean Ethics, but he also notes that the possible virtues and vices associated with “shame” are dif-ferent, and that there isn’t, strictly speaking, a virtuous mean for “shame.”  How is it that “shame” seems as if it can be analyzed in terms of virtue and vice, just as “fear” or “desire” are?  Why would Aristotle say that despite this, there is no virtuous state for shame? 

 

 

 

 

3)            Explain what each of Aristotle’s “four causes” would be for a human being.  Why is this task so much more difficult than identifying the “four causes” for a batch of chocolate chip cookies?

 

4)            In book iv of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle has the following to say about the deficient vice with respect to “anger…”

The deficiency, whether it is a sort of ‘inirascibility’ or whatever it is, is blamed.  For those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right persons; for such a man is thought not to feel things nor be pained by them, and since, he does not get angry, he is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one’s friends is slavish.

How would Stoics, such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius respond to this?  Would they agree or disagree with Aristotle?  Is Aristotle correct in his assessment re-garding the virtues of “righteous anger?”

 

5)            Aristotle says the following regarding the insufficiency of virtue for a hap-py/flourishing/eudaimon life in book I of his Nicomachean Ethics…

For there is required, as we said, not only complete virtue but also a com-plete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of chance/luck, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in old age, as is told of Priam in the Trojan Cycle; and one who has experienced such chance/luck and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy/flourishing.

Pick one of the Hellenistic schools we’ve encountered (Epicureanism, Stoicism, or Skepticism) and tell how they would respond to this.  Would they agree or disagree with Aristotle?  Is Aris-totle correct about the role of chance/luck in a happy/flourishing life?

 

6)            Should Socrates be regarded as an Epicurean?  A Stoic? A Sceptic?  Justify your answers by cit-ing specific passages from Plato’s dialogues.

 

7)            Under what circumstances ought we fear death?  Under what circumstances ought we willing-ly embrace our own death (by, e.g. refusing to act in a way that would save our own lives)?  Identify at least two competing lines of thinking on these questions from the thinkers we’ve read as well as what you think and why.