Attached.

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

1

Chapter 5: Primary Text
Aristotle, “On the Soul,”
Insert name of school
Insert your name
Insert professor name
July 2017

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

2
Chapter 5: Aristotle

Primary text: Aristotle, “On the Soul,”
Aristotle uses his familiar distinction to answer the question "What is the soul?” There are three
types of substances: matter, form, and compounds of matter and form. Aristotle is interested in
the compounds of life, such as plants and animals, beings that have souls. So, what makes you
decide what a living being really is, i.e. what is the formal cause of being alive? Aristotle seems
to give two answers: it is "for" life "means self-sufficiency, growth, and decay," and it is the soul
that does something alive. The idea seems to be that self-provision, etc., are the characteristic
signs to identify the presence of life, while the soul says that this explains the presence of such
characteristics.
Since the form is what makes the subject "this," the soul is a substance as defined in the
form or essence of a living being. Aristotle's first response to the question of what the soul is
must be a substance as a potential living natural body form. Note that "form" does not mean here
form, but the present, then the substance is topical; Hence the soul is the relevance of this type of
specific body. Therefore, the soul is the reality of a potential natural living body. Therefore, to
say that the soul is a reality means that it is a first or a second reality. Aristotle tells us that the
soul is the first flow means that the soul is the first actuality of a potentially living natural body.
Recall that the first current is a type of potential, the ability to participate in the activity,
which is the second corresponding reality. The second current is the exercise of a function and
the first current is the ability or will to perform this function. Therefore, the soul is the first
actuality of a potentially living natural body. Recall that the first current is a type of potential, the
ability to participate in the activity, which is the second corresponding reality. The second

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

3

current is the exercise of a function and the first current is the ability or will to perform this
function. The soul is a skill - but the ability to do what?
The soul of a living being is its ability to participate in the activities that characterize
the living beings of their natural species and promote their well-being and survival. What are
these activities? This would include: nutrition, growth, decay, movement, and rest (with respect
to place), perception, intelligence, so anything that is eaten, grows, decays, moving (on its own,
Not only when it moves with something "other" is perceived or thought to be alive and the
ability of a thing that these things are the soul of the soul is what is causally responsible for the
animate behavior (life activities) of a being The degree of the soul there is a nested hierarchy of
functions or activities of growth, nutrition, reproduction, locomotion, perception, intelligence (=
thought) gives us three corresponding degrees of soul: nutritive soul ( Plants), sensitive soul (all
animals) and rational soul (human beings).
These are nested in the sense that anything with a higher degree of the soul also has all
the lower degrees. All living things grow, feed and reproduce. Pets do not, but they move and
perceive. Human beings do all the above and right. There are other subdivisions at different
levels, we can assume (for example, all animals perceive, but some have only the sense of touch,
others have different senses, others have five senses.) Body and Soul If Aristotle had an answer
to the problem of mind and body, this is a theme that has deceived (and divided) interpreters of
Aristotle in the last years. Almost (but not quite) everyone agrees that he is not a dualist, but it
seems that there is a physical body at all. This means that you do not believe that mental states
are states of the brain - or conditions of the heart -. Or bodily processes)
Some think that proto functionalist. However, the prevailing opinion does not actually
appear to address the Cartesian question, mainly because its conception of the body is so

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

4

different from Descartes’ mechanical conception. It says things about some problems that are
clearly related to the problem of the body of the mind. A key question for the ancient Greeks as it
is today for many people is whether the soul can exist independently of the body.
Those who believe in the immortality of staff are dedicated independent existence of
the soul. Plato's phaeton with the greatest clarity clarified that the soul can exist separately.
Aristotle believed that the soul is not a body, but requires a body; because it is not a body, it
belongs to a body and is present in a body and in this type of body. Aristotle's argument,
although the soul is not a material object, is not separable from the body. When it comes to
intelligence, however, Aristotle says that the soul is the cause of life that the soul is the cause and
the beginning of a living body. In other words, the soul plays an explanatory role: namely, that
life is defined in terms of main activity: growth, food, locomotion, sensation, thought, the
substance is a cause of being and lives, Being = life.
Thus Aristotle thinks that his definition gives us an immediate answer to a fundamental
question about the relationship between body and soul, a problem similar to that occasionally
raised in contemporary discussions of the body-body problem. The question is whether the soul
and body are one, so do not ask if the soul and body are one, more than we have to ask for the
wax and the seal or, in general, about the subject and what is the question. In fact, when we
speak of "to" and "to be one" in different ways, the reality is complete. Unfortunately, it is
unclear what the answer is. If so, the answer is obviously yes or no, of course, "You can go both
ways: Obviously yes, the soul is the form (or actually), and the body is the matter Which is what
if "reality is full," which means that the soul and body are only one, so do not wonder
If the soul and body are one because of course, they are on the other side. Therefore, if
the body and soul are like wax and seal, then we do not ask ourselves if the soul and body are

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

5

one, because they are not, of course. A better solution is to say that the reason why we should not
ask is obvious that the answer is "yes in a sense and not in a way." We must ask ourselves and
the wax seal because it is obvious in what sense they are one and in that sense, they are not one.
The wax and the seal (which appears on it) are not two things break We ate, but we can make
them think d. The table is the shape that is printed on the wax and makes the wax type. So they
are one because they are inseparable and are not two substances, which is incorporated in the
other. The sense in which the core and body are one does not make the soul of a body or some
kind of body.
Therefore, Descartes believes that Aristotle's perspective is not Cartesian: a. there is an
interior / exterior contrast. The soul is not an internal viewer, in direct contact only with its own
perceptions and other psychic states, having to infer the existence of a body and an external
world. There is a notion of privacy experience, mental incorruptibility, etc., Aristotle's point of
view; the soul is not an existing independent substance. It is more linked to the body: it is the
shape of the body; it is not a separate substance within another substance (a body) of a different
kind. It is a skill; it is not what has the capacity. Therefore, it is not a separable soul. It is at best a
pure thought, devoid of personality, which is separable from the body (in the name of Aristotle).
The soul has little to do with personal identity and individuality. There is no reason to
think that a (human) soul is an important aspect of any other (human) soul. The form of a human
being is the same as the other. In this sense, there is only blood, not souls. You and I have
different souls because we are different people. But we are different because we are different
human beings composed of matter and form. This last point, of course, is controversial. Those
who believe in individual essences in metaphysics will surely remind them in an effort to make
real animated individuals, people with psychological predictions.

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

6

Direct Discourse: Plato’s Crito
Crito is supported by hinges on the relationship between words and facts. Socrates proposes a
level of agreement reached through persuasive argument or words. In this case, the argument is
deliberative: a common principle shared ("Man should never act unjustly") is overwhelmed with
a particular minor premise ("To repay injustice with injustice is unjust") to reach any Conclusion
("To pay for injustice with injustice must not be done"). Crito hesitates to perceive the lesser
premise. At this point, the laws of Athens are introduced; it was OMS's rule of an agreement
agreed with the facts, instead. Both rules apply to Socrates, which constitute the drama of
dialogue.
The life of Socrates gives an example of someone who is seeking a moral justification
for their actions. Socrates attempts to use reason (rather than values rooted in his culture) to
determine whether an action is right or wrong. The dialogue called "Crito" contains the image of
Socrates trying to adopt what could be called the moral point of view (as opposed to religion
itself or the point of view of society). In establishing a prologue and after the sentence, Socrates
was sent to the prison where he was to be executed. Therefore, Socrates was confined in his cell
for 30 days. Two days before the ship was about to return, an old friend named Crito came to
visit.
Crito Socrates said plans to prepare for his escape and travel to another country have
been. Socrates points out that they flee for violating the laws. So the practical question in this
dialogue becomes: Should I break the laws? The problem of opinion (48a-46d) Apology of Plato:
that distinguish Crito says "review the many" bad judge if we have not helped (and anyone in
your position agree that it should be executed). This review of some of Socrates points out that it
is right and wrong is feedback. This is not just a simple check, but a correct opinion. The

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

7

Authority, in this case, is the true truth of the matter. Socrates has introduced a distinction
between true and false feedback. And the way to the second is through discussions and reasons.
Appealing to the review of "many," the critic seems compromised poorly in the announcement
(ie, "something is fine, it is true, and so on."). Socrates seems to have an open theme: "The
prison's many escapes review says it's correct - but is it true?"
The argument (48b-54d) the first premise (48b-49b): you have to live reasonably. The
most important thing is "living well" ("good life" and "living well" are the same). Would it be
right to disobey the law (to escape from jail and without official discharge)? The second premise
(49b-49d): you should never hurt. It is never right to do wrong. Therefore, it is not correct to do
harm even when one is wrong (which is not correct to harm even when a person has been
injured).
The third premise (49o-50o): you have to keep agreements. The role of this premise is
established through a "dialogue with the laws" (50b-54d). Subsection 1: Socrates tacitly entered
into an agreement with the laws "A man has to make only the agreements," he said. Subsection
2: The laws are correct (they were not the laws that were guilty, but the opinion of the citizens).
Conclusion (54d-e): It would be a mistake to break ("punish") the laws. Socrates
answers the practical question: "Do I have to get out of jail?" Is nothing. "And he says that even
if this law will lead to the loss of his life (what this first premise before?) Notice how his theme
resulted in a different outcome of the" opinion of many. "It is also known how your critic is
changed during the debate. What consequences could a" dialogue "have on good and evil?
The fundamental problem of Plato's interpretation of Plato is how to reconcile two parts
of the dialogue which seems to be governed by two contradictory principles: the first part of the
dialogue (Cr 43a-49e) articulates the commitment of Socrates to Socrates’ reason. The dialogue

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

8

(Cr 49-54a) articulates the commitment of right Socrates. The apparent conflict arises from the
acquisition of the laws of Socrates: Socrates seems to abandon his previous commitment of
reason and deliberation in favor of dogmatic obedience to the law. The apparent problem is
solved by recognizing the common structure of reason and law: both are based on one principle
of authority, outside the other, which determines only the limits within which reason and law are
possible. Plato's criticism is an example of this principle and suggests its implications
My attempt to understand criticism in terms of the fundamental tension, which is
roughly divided into two halves of dialogue and a possible resolution of this tension, is not
unique. I believe that the quantity and quality of recent studies of Crito can be explained by a
relatively recent trend rather than by thinking of the whole Crito dialogue. For many years
interpreters have focused on the particular problems of Crito - the arguments presented by laws
or argument for not doing evil - or, at most, the consistency of these problems with special
passages of excuses measures. More recently, in line with the broader tendencies of Plato's bag,
interpreters have focused on the whole dialogue as a dialogue; This change of approach brings
out new questions and hopefully rightly think that the artists put together the first and second part
of the dialogue. The most useful way to reflect on the current work is Crito, for the most part,
separate those interpretations that I agree with and support the hiring of Socrates to remain in
prison for those who want to explain apparently dogmatic obedience to the law of Socrates in
Athens.
If I am right that half of the critical tension that results from the principles of
competition, the principle of reason and the principle of right, this tension will explain the two
types of interpretation: some interpreters I want Socrates remains fundamentally Committed to
the rule of reason; These usually explain obedience obedient to the law of Socrates in Athens:

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

9

"Man has the obligation to respect the sentences of the State and not to seek individual
exceptions to the law." Among the other artists that Socrates wants to remain fundamentally
committed to the rule of law; these usually explain each conflict that shows that Socrates is and
should be reasonably believed to remain in jail, which is governed by Athens laws.21 "Man
should not fail to respect the sentences of the State." A representative of the first interpretations
of interpretations "tries to explain the obedient nature and obedience of Socrates because it
conflicts with his commitment to the rule of reason.
According to Socrates' point of view, the law will have to be destroyed for the good of
the city; Socrates 22 suppresses this view in favor of presenting the vision of many through the
voice that speaks of the laws, "Socrates actually invokes the perspective of many to build the
defense can be understandable and effective more commitment of the philosopher to justice."
Basically, because Crito has proved incapable of understanding the philosophical position,
Socrates - by virtue of the law - presents "intelligible" illusion to Crito and "effective" and
produces long-term benefits. Socrates "suppresses short-term research also to preserve and
succeed in the long run." This is because "the laws specify as" loudspeaker "Socrates, before the
construction of his oratory, is actually very different suppresses his point of view." Therefore,
Socrates' commitment to the rule of reason is suppressed and obedience to the law of Athens is
explained as a simple oratory.
The crucial unanswered question is: "Does the city has Socrates wrong and wrongly
decided its opinion?" Crito answers that seem to answer the question, or support that has not
been influenced by the city, or even the investigative justice that remains in prison, Socrates tells
a story about the origins. The city and its laws are the sources of Socrates. Socrates asks whether

Aristotle, ‘On Soul’ and Discourse

10

these laws affect laws or civil laws that have been nurtured and educated; Socrates replies that
"he is not guilty of these laws or laws that were trained in music and athletics.
The law then asks Socrates: Since birth, fed and educated, could you say that in front of our son
and slave, both you and your ancestors? And if so, let's assume that what is right is based on
equality between you and us and everything we try to do, let's say we do it just in exchange for
these things to us? The laws establish that his right to destroy Socrates does not give him the
right to destroy the laws "individual exceptions to the law weaken and damage the state," he said.
There is a fundamental inequality between rules (laws) and dominated (Socrates) "A state of
survival requires that the laws have a similar force and will apply in all cases -A, 50b 3
Some exceptions to the law imply that the laws do not apply in all cases - F, B5,
although Socrates explicitly defines their relationship in terms of agreement.28 in a very
important way, since this inequality is a part of the suggested inequality L 'pragmatic
precautionary measure to Critón. Socrates says that "Everyone establishes an agreement with the
State to comply with its judgments," "This agreement is a fair transaction with giving and
receiving mutual." Someone has to decide when practical circumstances require action in the
absence of final resolution.
This is above all a human decision and cannot be ruled by reason since it is a decision
to suspend reason and, by analogy, the law. This exceptional situation requires a competent
person to decide the normal standard, which should govern reason and law. Talk, discern laws
choose or what is considered marriage counts as families and children, which count as food and
education. While it may be very interesting to think about the way the laws create Socrates, what
is more important for my current events...