In my last post, I tackled my thoughts on why I want to consciously realize my philosophy, and why I think it’s important that everyone pursues their individual philosophy. This week I’d like to get into some of what I’ve learned from other philosophers, as well as share some of my own thoughts on the ideas they bring up. I had hoped to do this in a separate post, but, as I’ll explain later, I’ve been very busy this week. Regardless, I hope that the ideas I’ll be writing about can stimulate you to think about your own philosophies.

After I decided to tackle my philosophy in a broader respect rather than simply exploring how I thought of music (though, to be fair that itself is not exactly a simple topic), I realized how important it was to build a philosophy from the bottom up. If you are going to build a stable building, it’s a good idea to ensure you are building on solid ground. Likewise, a stable philosophy necessitates a solid starting point. Thus, we begin by looking at metaphysics.

Philosophy may be seen as a series of questions (a la Alain de Botton) as well as the rational development of answers to these questions. Metaphysics begs the question: “What is?” Thus, it’s not hard to see how metaphysics makes up the foundation of a philosophy. Let’s then take a glance at the metaphysics proposed by two of the most influential philosophers of all time, Plato and Aristotle.

Plato’s theory of forms posits that there are two planes of existence, the material realm (with which we interact) and the higher realm of forms. Plato put forth the idea that the material realm is imperfect and constantly changing. If you look at a book, you may notice its shape (probably a sort of cuboid), or perhaps the color of its  binding (let’s say it’s red). When you take these aspects of the book and think of them separately, you are thinking of the form of a cuboid or the form of the color red. Plato argued that these forms presuppose the book or even your ideas of them. He thought that there was another realm, which we could perceive with our minds, in which the forms existed in permanent, perfect states. Our material world was thus created by this world of forms, and all objects in it were simply imperfect representations of these forms.

Aristotle, who was Plato’s student, agreed with Plato in thinking that an object consisted of forms, but he differed in thinking that the forms were inherent aspects of the object, rather than existing separate from it in another realm. To put his argument in simple terms, a thing is what it is. Aristotle explained this idea by breaking objects down to their causes. Let’s think about that red cuboid book again. Aristotle would say that it’s material cause is the paper, the ink, etc. that constitute it. It’s formal cause is its blueprint or design, the structure of it. It’s efficient cause is that which predicated it, its author, those who turned the wood into paper, etc. In effect, the reason it is. Finally it’s final cause is it’s purpose, that which it aims to become (something to be read by someone).

Now, some will say that these philosophies are mostly grounded in epistemology (which we’ll get to a little later). I agree, but each of these arguments has, at its core, an easily discernible metaphysics.

Plato (left) walking alongside Aristotle (right).

In Raphael’s famous painting, The School of Athens, Plato and Aristotle are placed in the center- each is carrying a book of their own philosophical writings, and facing the other as if in conversation. They are also each gesturing with their free right hands. Plato points up, and Aristotle holds his hand out in front of him, horizontal to the ground. Plato believed in a higher realm, whereas Aristotle argued the importance of this realm. Plato was an idealist. Aristotle was a realist. Thus we arrive at the ideas which lay at the core of their philosophies. Plato held that ideas are absolute. Aristotle held that reality is absolute.

So… what is? René Descartes’ famous phrase, “I think, therefore I am,” seems to answer this question. To argue against the statement is to contradict yourself, and thus in my studies I have not come across any philosophers who have not accepted the truth of this statement. Thus many have used this as their axiom.

I plan on adding more to this blog post, but midnight is fast approaching. I’m also very tired, so I’ll complete my train of thought on this subject, as well as include updates about my latest goings on, tomorrow.

Work Cited:

Raphael. The School of Athens. Digital image. Museos Vaticanos. N.p., n.d. Web. May May 2015.