Aristotel/Soul and Psychology
The Soul and Psychology
Soul is defined by Aristotle as the perfect expression or realization of a natural body. From this definition it follows that there is a close connection between psychological states, and physiological processes. Body and soul are unified in the same way that wax and an impression stamped on it are unified. Metaphysicians before Aristotle discussed the soul abstractly without any regard to the bodily environment; this, Aristotle believes, was a mistake. At the same time, Aristotle regards the soul or mind not as the product of the physiological conditions of the body, but as the truth of the body -- the substance in which only the bodily conditions gain their real meaning.
The soul manifests its activity in certain "faculties" or "parts" which correspond with the stages of biological development, and are the faculties of nutrition (peculiar to plants), that of movement (peculiar to animals), and that of reason (peculiar to humans). These faculties resemble mathematical figures in which the higher includes the lower, and must be understood not as like actual physical parts, but like such aspects as convex and concave which we distinguish in the same line. The mind remains throughout a unity: and it is absurd to speak of it, as Plato did, as desiring with one part and feeling anger with another. Sense perception is a faculty of receiving the forms of outward objects independently of the matter of which they are composed, just as the wax takes on the figure of the seal without the gold or other metal of which the seal is composed. As the subject of impression, perception involves a movement and a kind of qualitative change; but perception is not merely a passive or receptive affection. It in turn acts, and, distinguishing between the qualities of outward things, becomes "a movement of the soul through the medium of the body."
The objects of the senses may be either (1) special, (such as color is the special object of sight, and sound of hearing), (2) common, or apprehended by several senses in combination (such as motion or figure), or (3) incidental or inferential (such as when from the immediate sensation of white we come to know a person or object which is white). There are five special senses. Of these, touch is the must rudimentary, hearing the most instructive, and sight the most ennobling. The organ in these senses never acts directly , but is affected by some medium such as air. Even touch, which seems to act by actual contact, probably involves some vehicle of communication. For Aristotle, the heart is the common or central sense organ. It recognizes the common qualities which are involved in all particular objects of sensation. It is, first, the sense which brings us a consciousness of sensation. Secondly, in one act before the mind, it holds up the objects of our knowledge and enables us to distinguish between the reports of different senses.
Aristotle defines the imagination as "the movement which results upon an actual sensation." In other words, it is the process by which an impression of the senses is pictured and retained before the mind, and is accordingly the basis of memory. The representative pictures which it provides form the materials of reason. Illusions and dreams are both alike due to an excitement in the organ of sense similar to that which would be caused by the actual presence of the sensible phenomenon. Memory is defined as the permanent possession of the sensuous picture as a copy which represents the object of which it is a picture. Recollection, or the calling back to mind the residue of memory, depends on the laws which regulate the association of our ideas. We trace the associations by starting with the thought of the object present to us, then considering what is similar, contrary or contiguous.
Reason is the source of the first principles of knowledge. Reason is opposed to the sense insofar as sensations are restricted and individual, and thought is free and universal. Also, while the senses deals with the concrete and material aspect of phenomena, reason deals with the abstract and ideal aspects. But while reason is in itself the source of general ideas, it is so only potentially. For, it arrives at them only by a process of development in which it gradually clothes sense in thought, and unifies and interprets sense-presentations. This work of reason in thinking beings suggests the question: How can immaterial thought come to receive material things? It is only possible in virtue of some community between thought and things. Aristotle recognizes an active reason which makes objects of thought. This is distinguished from passive reason which receives, combines and compares the objects of thought. Active reason makes the world intelligible, and bestows on the materials of knowledge those ideas or categories which make them accessible to thought. This is just as the sun communicates to material objects that light, without which color would be invisible, and sight would have no object. Hence reason is the constant support of an intelligible world. While assigning reason to the soul of humans, Aristotle describes it as coming from without, and almost seems to identify it with God as the eternal and omnipresent thinker. Even in humans, in short, reason realizes something of the essential characteristic of absolute thought -- the unity of thought as subject with thought as object.
|Enigma|| Aristotel bil uchenik na Platon, koj bil sledbenik na Sokrat. Tie zhiveele vo antichko politeistichko opshtestvo, koga narodite, so iskluchok na Judeite nemale poim za edno bozhestvo. Sepak, go postignale chovechkiot maksimalen intelekt i doshle do znachajni otkritija za antichkiot svet, t.e. se priblizhile kon vistinata. Pred da govorime za filosofija, najnapred treba da ja svatime nejzinata sushtina i smisla. "Filosofija" vo prevod od grchki znachi "ljubov za mudrosta", no ne i "mudrost". Imeno, antichkite filosofi tragale po mudrosta i vistinata, i od taa pochetna ljubov se zarodila misla, od
koja izniknala i se razvila naukata na filosofijata. Aristotel veruval deka izuchuvajki ja prirodata na vselenata, chovekot mozhe da ja otkrie absolutnata vistina, koja se odnesuva na Boga. Vsushnost, toa uchenje e zasnovano vrz Sokratoviot princip, koj preku Platona mu e predaden na Aristotel. Neznam, dali go razbirash gorniot tekst, zashto Aristotel realno ja sogledal chovechkata dusha i nejzinata povrzanost so teloto,
koe bez dushata nema substancija (sushtina, bitie) i gi prepoznava svojstvata na dushata, ocenuvajki deka rasuditelnosta e motiv na prviot princip na znaenjeto. Iako Sokrat, Platon i Aristotel gi pochituvale grchkite bozhestva, tie veruvale deka postoi edno bozhestvo i se stremele kon negovo otkrivanje. Aristotel ne bil sluchaen uchitel na
Aleksandar Makedonski, koj go osvoil togashniot izvesen svet i go podgotvil kon novata hristijanska era, t.e. go civiliziral svetot, i sam se poklonil pred ediniot Bog vo Erusalimskiot hram, a negovite naslednici vo Egipet, dinstijata na Ptolomeite go zakazhala prviot primerok na Stariot Zavet na grchki jazik, narechen "Septaginta".
Na toj nachin, do pristignuvanjeto na Hrista, svetot vekje dobil poim za edno bozhestvo. Vistinata, do koja se priblizhija i po koja tragaa Sokrat, Platon i Aristotel, nekolku veka podocna mu beshe otkriena na svetot vo Hrista, Koj od Svojata usta ja izreche i gi otkri tajnite na zhivotot. Odtogash izminaa dve iljadi i pet godini, i posle se (seta filosofija, prirodni nauki i Bozhje Otkrovenie) postojat lugje, koi se deklariraat kako ateisti. Dali nekogash si se zaprashala, zoshto si ateist? Sokrat, Platon i Aristotel ne samo shto ne bile ateisti, ami tragale po vistinata, koja za niv bila skriena, dodeka ateistite ne ja prifakjaat otkrienata Vistina, ni vo ovaa 2006g. na novata era.
Sokrat go ispil otrovot za skrien Bog, Koj seushte na go poznaval, no sakal da go poznae i veruval deka postoi. Konkretno, Sokrat bil osuden na smrt, poradi zapoznavanje i zabluduvanje na atinskata mladina so bozhestvo, koe ne bilo priznato od Atinskata drzhava.
Iako mu bila dadena mozhnost na zhivot, ako se otkazhe od "idejata" za edno bozhestvo, Sokrat ja predpochital smrtta. Za ogromna razlika od mislitelot na site vreminja, ateistite ja odfrlaat Vistinata i podarenata chasha na vechen zhivot, svoevolno piejki go smrtonosniot otrov od svojata chasha. I koja e smislata na ovie postovi, shto gi izlozhuvash od oblasta na filosofijata?
|Aleksandra||Cisto edukativni.Razni mislenje i stavovi za ovie Filozofi. Da procitam i jas, a i narodot...a posebno da citame dobri postovi kako tvoite...sekogas ucime neshto novo.|