On Aristotle - Berquist

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

utunumsint

Guest
Hi,

I found some good audio classes on Aristotle. I thought I would listen to them and post my thoughts about them here. My hope is that this will give me a better understanding and appreciation of Aquinas.

mediafire.com/?7lfnabqcg95nr

Your thoughts are welcome too!

God bless,
Ut
 
First lecture: 0 to 50 minutes

There are four or five kinds of knowing on the road to wisdom.

  1. *]Animals are born having sensation. Compare an animal with a stone or a tree and the animal seems to be aware of its surroundings. The animal is then wiser than the stone or the tree.
    *]Memory does not arise in some of them, but does arise in others. He is talking about a low form of animal life. Maybe like a sea anemone. Such animals do not move from one place. They have no memory. All it needs comes to it though the currents of the water.
    *]All the higher animals have memory. Who is better, the animal with memory or the animal without it. If we had no memory, we would not be able to learn from experience. We would be no better off than when we were babies. For example, a cat puts it paw on a hot burner, and is hurt, but never does it again. Why? Because it remembers. So the animal with memory is more advanced on the road to wisdom than the animal without memory. Memory creates the conditions required for experience. Experience is a gathering together of many similar memories which a person can compare one memory with another. For example, a wine expert has tasted many wines because he has in his memory the experience of many wines that he can compare. He is wiser than the man with only one memory. The other animals live by images in memory, but do not live by experience. Reason brings these groupings together. Many memories of the same sort of things creates experiences. Animals have memories of images and sensations, but they cannot create experience because they do not have reason. They cannot groups images together. In human beings, many memories grouped together through the faculty of reason creates experiences.
    *]But what is the difference between experience and science and art. What is the transition from experience to art and science? Experience is a knowledge of singulars. If I take aspirin and my headache goes away and start to compare my memories, I will start to notice that aspirin generally takes headaches away. It has the power of taking away headaches.
    *]Art and science comes to be when we start making universals in our understanding. It comes to be when we see universals in our experiences. Are art and science superior to experience? Aristotle says that experience is a knowledge of singulars, and art and science are knowledge of universals. But they are not necessarily better, the one over the other. Experience is closer to singulars, so in terms of doings and makings, experience is almost better than art or science. If someone has reason without experience, he may make mistakes. Nevertheless, the man with art and science is more knowing and wiser than the man with experience because experience tells us only that something is so, but art and science know why something is so. The reason this is so is that the men of art or science know the cause of things, whereas the men of experience do not. Someone may know good wine from experience, but do not know why it is so. The reason why is in the method by which a good wine is made. But the man of experience does not know this. He only knows that the wine is good, not why it is good.

    God bless,
    Ut
 
utunumsint said:
First lecture: 0 to 50 minutes

There are four or five kinds of knowing on the road to wisdom.

  1. *]Animals are born having sensation. Compare an animal with a stone or a tree and the animal seems to be aware of its surroundings. The animal is then wiser than the stone or the tree.
    *]Memory does not arise in some of them, but does arise in others. He is talking about a low form of animal life. Maybe like a sea anemone. Such animals do not move from one place. They have no memory. All it needs comes to it though the currents of the water.
    *]All the higher animals have memory. Who is better, the animal with memory or the animal without it. If we had no memory, we would not be able to learn from experience. We would be no better off than when we were babies. For example, a cat puts it paw on a hot burner, and is hurt, but never does it again. Why? Because it remembers. So the animal with memory is more advanced on the road to wisdom than the animal without memory. Memory creates the conditions required for experience. Experience is a gathering together of many similar memories which a person can compare one memory with another. For example, a wine expert has tasted many wines because he has in his memory the experience of many wines that he can compare. He is wiser than the man with only one memory. The other animals live by images in memory, but do not live by experience. Reason brings these groupings together. Many memories of the same sort of things creates experiences. Animals have memories of images and sensations, but they cannot create experience because they do not have reason. They cannot groups images together. In human beings, many memories grouped together through the faculty of reason creates experiences.
    *]But what is the difference between experience and science and art. What is the transition from experience to art and science? Experience is a knowledge of singulars. If I take aspirin and my headache goes away and start to compare my memories, I will start to notice that aspirin generally takes headaches away. It has the power of taking away headaches.
    *]Art and science comes to be when we start making universals in our understanding. It comes to be when we see universals in our experiences. Are art and science superior to experience? Aristotle says that experience is a knowledge of singulars, and art and science are knowledge of universals. But they are not necessarily better, the one over the other. Experience is closer to singulars, so in terms of doings and makings, experience is almost better than art or science. If someone has reason without experience, he may make mistakes. Nevertheless, the man with art and science is more knowing and wiser than the man with experience because experience tells us only that something is so, but art and science know why something is so. The reason this is so is that the men of art or science know the cause of things, whereas the men of experience do not. Someone may know good wine from experience, but do not know why it is so. The reason why is in the method by which a good wine is made. But the man of experience does not know this. He only knows that the wine is good, not why it is good.

    God bless,
    Ut
Click to expand...

  1. Very good. You can read Thomas’ commentary on A’s De Anima here:
    dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeAnima.htm

    Linus2nd
 
50 to 58
Aristotle wants to show in two different way that the man who know why is wiser than the man who does not know why.

The first example he uses is to compare a chief artist with a subordinate artist. Why are the chief artist held in higher esteem? The subordinate artists makes, but does not know why they make. For example, a Doctor is wiser than a pharmacist. The Doctor gives the pharmacist a prescription. He fills the prescription, but does not know why he has to do this for a particular patient. He only knows about the drug, while the doctor know about the drug and the treatment of the patient.

Or there is Napoleon and his cavalry. Napoleon has the battle plan to win the battle. He know why and when his cavalry should charge, whereas the cavalry only knows how to charge. Soldiers are not paid to think and in most situations should not question their orders.

The second example is from the example of a teacher. A teacher cannot teach his students about things unless he understands why things are the way they are.

God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
50 to 58
Aristotle wants to show in two different way that the man who know why is wiser than the man who does not know why.

The first example he uses is to compare a chief artist with a subordinate artist. Why are the chief artist held in higher esteem? The subordinate artists makes, but does not know why they make. For example, a Doctor is wiser than a pharmacist. The Doctor gives the pharmacist a prescription. He fills the prescription, but does not know why he has to do this for a particular patient. He only knows about the drug, while the doctor know about the drug and the treatment of the patient.

Or there is Napoleon and his cavalry. Napoleon has the battle plan to win the battle. He know why and when his cavalry should charge, whereas the cavalry only knows how to charge. Soldiers are not paid to think and in most situations should not question their orders.

The second example is from the example of a teacher. A teacher cannot teach his students about things unless he understands why things are the way they are.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
How does that web site work? Do you have to register first?

Linus2nd
 
You just click on the file and some popups appear with a download button. Just click it and there you go. Too bad about all the spam, but the content seems good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top