Need Metaphysics HW help

[tanzilc]

Hey can you guys answer these questions for me please?

Is knowledge "natural"? Compare Plato or Aristotle with one of the
other philosophical approaches to this question we have considered.

Does teleology matter? Why or why not?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Plato's insistence that
the Forms are transcendent and not immanent to the natural world?

How would Plato or Aristotle criticize Lucretius's conception of both
nature and the soul?

In what ways do the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides set the
stage for the philosophers that succeeded them?

(Moderator edit: thread moved to more appropriate forum. jgw)

[Didymos Thomas]

No... well, I could answer part of these questions, but I would feel much more comfortable giving you the tools to answer these questions.

Good place to start:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[VideCorSpoon]

You may want to provide more information in some of your questions. For example;

Originally Posted by tanzilc

Is knowledge "natural"? Compare Plato or Aristotle with one of the
other philosophical approaches to this question we have considered.

What are the other philosophical approaches you have study? You would have to give a few to put this question in context. The same goes for;

Originally Posted by tanzilc

Does teleology matter? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by tanzilc

How would Plato or Aristotle criticize Lucretius's conception of both
nature and the soul?

As for some of the other questions,

Originally Posted by tanzilc

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Plato's insistence that
the Forms are transcendent and not immanent to the natural world?

Plato’s theory of forms is considered on two different but asymmetric levels in one archetype of reality. On the one hand you have a distinct individual material things which people occupy themselves with and are considered part of our “sensible” version of reality. On a separate, some would say higher, level are entities (note that this is much like the Leibnizian concept of entelochies (monads) rather than pre-existing individual incorporeal forms) that are a) immaterial, b)intelligible. The important thing to remebr is that these higher forms are encountered only through thought and not through sensation. Think of rationalist principles and a-priori dogmatisms. The nature of these forms is a) one, b) the same as itself, c) unchanging, d) eternal, etc. But in all of this, the form represent an object of true knowledge.

So when you ask what are the advantages and disadvantages of Plato’s transcendent forms, you could say that there is an advantage as far as describing a causal factor in Plato’s philosophy. This is a theme revisited in Spinoza and Leibniz in regards to the principle of sufficient reason (i.e. Spinoza and the PSR of there being a single monistic world and Leibniz and his plurality of substances of which God chooses the best of all possible worlds.) But besides this point, there are other advantages. Forms are in a way models, or sources which reflect the true object best in all possible worlds. They are therefore the best type of thing in existence. The forms also represent forms of true thought beyond our sensory experiences. So I would suggest that Platos forms offer answers to epistemological as well as metaphysical questions. But there is more to this question than this, but I am not sure what your teacher covered.

Originally Posted by tanzilc

In what ways do the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides set the
stage for the philosophers that succeeded them?

Heraclitus is classified into the Ionian “natural philosophers.” Heraclitus for example is primarily concerned with cosmic processes and the nature of things. In fact Heraclitus is attributed the fact that he started the whole classical philosophical discourse beyond the previous attempt of Hesoid, etc. Heraclitus, to point, states that he “marks off each thing according to its nature, pointing out how it is.” But the main thing to take away is that Heraclitus is most of all reformulating the cosmological analysis of the universe compared to guys like Hesiod, who relied on a very heavy cosmogony to answer the basic questions of nature. Parmendies, who had a much more different standpoint which denied plurality and change is in many ways the equal in Heraclitus because both these two philosophers are confronting the empirical cosmogony of Hesiod and those who preceded him. First and foremost, they in fact question the standard practice of cosmology. Aristotle said it himself in Metaphysics book alpha 1, that philosophers like Heraclitus, though they did not get it right, were worthy of admiration because the stepped out side the box and thought in an asymmetric manner. They challenged the pseudo-empirical though processes of cosmogony and established philosophical thought and doctrine.

[Pangloss]

I think we should probably be doing our own homework...maybe you can post your responses first, then we could give input.

[Theaetetus]

I always feel that if a question is posted without any background information that the person will just copy down what I wrote and hand it in.

[jgweed]

I have moved this thread to Phil.101 from the Metaphysics forum, and encourage the thread starter to read the pinned topic here because doing so will allow the Member to better frame his questions should he wish to do so, and others to provide better, more specific answers.
Pangloss has made a good suggestion; take a stab at providing your answers or arguments one way or the other to each question separately. It would be helpful to know, moreover, the readings upon which the answers would be based.
John

John