Can philosophers help resolve the real problems that people have in their lives?
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
It depends on whether the myth of bats' blindness existed at that time.Wilson89 wrote:Aristotle states that the intellect of our soul relates to the truth in the way the eyes of the bat relate to the sunlight. What do you think he means here?
If the myth (which is wrong btw) existed, then what he would mean is that the intellect has a passive relationship with the soul, that, much like the dualism of Descartes, even if they coexisted, they didn't cause each other to do things of significance.
If the myth didn't exist, he'd likely mean that the intellect was in a constant exposure to the soul and that this would change it some, but also the other way back. For instance, we shift our gaze if there is too much sunlight, or keep our eyes shut, and it is through sunlight that we are enabled to see, so it is through our soul we would be able to gain (proper) knowledge.
A calm soul might bring us to good and plenty of knowledge, while a stressed one will make us short-sighted and out of touch with a lot of details.
Sophia doesn't mean an attitude to learn knowledge, so I wouldn't know that.Wilson89 wrote:If sophia means a attitude to learn knowledge. How does sophia(wisdom) in this way appear to challenge or alter our more conventional views about knowledge?
Wisdom is not the harvesting of information or the practice of knowledge foundations, wisdom is the efficiency of knowledge, and so any path that pursues knowledge that is the most efficient is a love of wisdom.
A bat doesn't rely on it's eyesight in order to hunt or navigate in dark places, therefore the obvious logically conclusion must be that the soul isn't the deciding factor for preceving truth.Wilson89 wrote:Aristotle states that the intellect of our soul relates to the truth in the way the eyes of the bat relate to the sunlight. What do you think he means here?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests