Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant

Thales and Homer are two great philosophers who contributed a lot in the field of philosophy. Philosophy is a broad field of knowledge that seeks to understand scientific reason of the world and its inhabitants. The general understanding of knowledge in academics has its roots in philosophy. The existence of the two philosophers was important in the generation of their lives. This essay seeks to establish their contribution to science and the existence of the supernatural being.

Meta-ethics considers the questions of moral language. Metaethics unlike normative ethics that looks at the act or characteristic of right and wrong, it looks at right and wrong more by implications of what is the nature of good and bad. Metaethics tends to ask the questions of what are the difference

Both Philosophers Aristotle and Plato have very different perspectives according to their metaphysics. Plato explains his metaphysics through the story of the allegory of the cave which conveys his story of the Divided Line, while on the other hand Aristotle explains his metaphysics through his idea of actuality versus potentiality which leds him to the discussion of substance. Plato explains his metaphysics in a sense where he mainly discusses the idea of knowledge and truth through ideas, while Aristotle on the other hand explains his metaphysics in a real life sense offering the stronger system for being able to break down his belief in great detail applying it to the real world, which can stem out to being applied to everything.

You see through the ages of philosophy there have been many debates and opinions. Yet it is those opinions that are the most radical that demand the most attention. On that note, we will address two radical philosophizers: Spinoza and Hobbes. Specifically there theory's pertaining to matter and the mind-body problem posed by Descartes. As such we will first address Hobbes then move to Spinoza and end with a combined statement on matter. Therefore we must begin by introducing Thomas Hobbes.

While metaphysics questions the notion of reality, Kant questions the possibility of metaphysics. Is it reasonable to assume human mind as a capable tool of knowing the world, if its capacities of knowledge are limited? The idea of metaphysics relies on the premise that knowledge can be derived purely from reason, but Kant does not agree with it. He claims that the human mind cannot know pure reality because of the unavoidable subjectivity of any knowledge, and thus, vanquishes the concept of metaphysics. I personally agree with Kant in his distinction of phenomenal and noumenal realities and the gap between them. The human mind is only one tool for describing and understanding the world, and its capabilities are limited by its definition. In any case, we cannot transcend the physical restrictions of our senses, and that alone already draws a distinction between the world we perceive and the world that exists.

Aristotle describes Metaphysics as “the science of the first cause”, or the primary science. These causes and principles are clearly the subject matter of what he calls ‘first philosophy’. Arguably meaning that it should be studied by future philosophers first, but his theory actually concerns issues that are in some sense the most fundamental or at the very least have a more general sense of the descriptor “first cause”.

Metaphysics is “a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being” (Inwagen & Sullivan2014). Within the study of metaphysics is branch of ontology, which is described as being the “essence of being”, or what makes us human (Professor D. C. Malloy, personal communication, 2017). Further breaking down the notion of ontology is essence, which is broadly defined as a

Kant begins by considering how metaphysics could be determined. This would involve figuring its object, sources of cognition, and /or type of cognition. Firstly, metaphysics must be non-empirical, and its principles and basic ideas must not be derived from experience. Thus, metaphysics must be a-priori cognition “coming from pure understanding and pure reason”. It is distinguished

To begin, Aristotle and Kant’s distinction regarding the source of virtuous or dutiful action is primarily focused on the assertion of how to act in accordance of the moral law. Aristotle believes “that every action or pursuit aims at a good” (NE, Pg. 24), but their disagreement being as to what the good is. Aristotle believes “that right action is not only morally correct but also occurs with pleasure, and that the pleasure is a sign that the virtuous disposition has been acquired” (NE, Pg.5). On the other hand, Kant believes “that every action or pursuit must be done out of duty, which reflects one’s respect for the moral law” (Lecture 13, Slide 13). The end result of this action is not significant for Kant. This inference leads Kant to

Each video offers different insights in these four subjects. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which investigates the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.[1] Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions such as what is there and what is there. This branch tries to find the meaning of life through thought alone.

Thomas Aquinas stated that substance is the initial means of being and it delineates what an entity is (Kerr, n.d.). In other words, substances possess being; however, they are not equivalent with being. Moreover, a substance’s being is not definite through what it is. In the domain of metaphysics, a substance according to its nature, subsist not as a fragment of something else, however, a substance subsists within itself. On the contrary, accidents amend substances in a particular mode. In other words, in the realm of metaphysics, accidents do not subsist within themselves; however, they solitary subsist as a fragment of a particular substance. In addition, accidents arrive and depart without the entity misplacing its individuality. In the

As being the branch of philosophy concerned with being, the nature of existence, and the world and universe around us, Metaphysika, or Metaphysics, meaning “after physics”, has been argued as being the foundation of Philosophy, having even been deemed by Aristotle as the “first philosophy”. Throughout history, many great minds have developed works in order to better understand the universe through the metaphysical lens. Philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza who wrote the Ethics, and Gottfried Leibniz who wrote the Monadology, focus these works within the field of Metaphysics, building upon past theories such as Plato. Not only do they both utilize Metaphysics in order to gain a better understanding of the natural principals of the universe, but

Metaphysics Lambda starts by looking into the idea of substances, which according to the book are of three types.

In order to embark upon a discussion of moderate metaphysical realism, it is first pertinent to delineate the term and distinguish it from the opposing position.

Anna Marmodoro is a scholar and writer for the British Journal of the History of Philosophy, and believes that Anaxagoras is very well known for his “unique metaphysical posture” that he holds about his view on mixtures. She articulates that Anaxagoras did not have all the answers, not even to the questions he himself raises, but Marmodoro believes “the originality of his thought, and the uniqueness of his ontology in the history of philosophy make the questions it raises worth exploring and pursuing today.” Marmodoro continues to assert that Anaxagoras is still very influential today, and his ideas and views are widespread, even amongst contemporary metaphysicians. But, Marmodoro points out the Saturation Argument, the Containment Regress Argument, and the Refinement Regree Argument, there all contradict Anaxagoras’s ontology of everything in everything. After reviewing these counterarguments, Marmodor says that “the midway conclusion we are in the position to draw at this stage is that we cannot understand Anaxagoras’s ontology, as governed by EEP [Everything in Everything Principle], USP [Unlimited Smallness Principle], and PP [Principle of Preponderance], in terms of elements containing one another.” Mamodoro sees Anaxagoras’s view as unique, but as shown through many counterarguments is hard to understand and interpret the exact meanings of the many different quotes of Anaxagoras.