Response to Siearra/Is Priori Knowledge Important

The post by Siearra titled "Is Priori Knowledge Important" posed a few topics for me to discuss.  She brought up the issue of right and wrong of good knowledge and not good.  She asks, "How, as human beings, are we supposed to know what knowledge we come across is good or not?" It is interesting to consider the subjective input each individual has, and how will that impact the classifications of good/evil.  Plato had an objective view that all humans posses one inherent opinion of good knowledge and would therefor recognize it immediately.  
Siearra's grand question of what is the difference between right and wrong can be answered simply according to Plato; with an objective base each person will do what society deems acceptable and "right" taking into account the ways their actions contribute to society and the attainment of reason. There is no room of subjective classifications or moral confusion.

Chance/Morals/Aristotle

Today in class we examined the notion of moral luck. The basic premise explains that all our circumstances are due to chance.  We cannot owe our situations to higher powers, self will, or determination.  The cycle begins when we are born- the parents we have and their particular beliefs and experiences directly affects our personality.  Due to complete chance each individual has a probability equally weighted.  This continues throughout our lives in which we become victors or victims to our circumstances.  If this belief is true, the basis that eternal realms exist to guide our bodies to the Good is invalid. Aristotle recognized that moderate wealth, good social standing, personal upkeep, and cultural awareness are directly linked to attaining reason and discovering the good.  If chance dictated all facets of our lives, would it be possible for any person to progress towards intellect, reason, moral actions, and the ultimate good? Personally I find moral luck would be a hindrance to self improvement based on these questions.  I know Aristotle did not specifically deconstruct moral luck and correlate it into his theory of human nature- I was toying with a concept we examined and attempted to integrate it into his theories. 

Aristotle's Tottles

I fabricated the word "tottles" ..it had a novelty ring to it and added an attracting title.  This post will address some of Aristotle's primary theories in conjunction to classroom discussions.  We spoke today about the interconnection of pleasure and happiness and the notion that there are higher and lower pleasures that Aristotle did not necessarily outline, but can be formulated from application of his theories in the real world.  Is it through our natural and good intuition to experience higher pleasures as opposed to lower order pleasures?  Do the higher and lower levels correspond to the flesh or to the mind or both?  After recognizing our experiences with the short term high level pleasures is it possible to falter and crave short term low level pleasures? Does this cause detriment to our overall character?

In a separate discussion Aristotle's belief of "natural slaves" was deconstructed.  A few questions came to mind: did Aristotle's classification of those who were slaves correspond strictly to a man's lack of natural abilities or a cultural/personal perceived notion of insignificance (relating to age, race, gender, social status, etc).  The slaves experienced a happy state of affairs when their superior rational owners used reason and good to conduct their authority.  How can this be considered valid in any facet? Is this not a paradox in which the victim owes the victimizer?  The oppressive set of circumstances of one committed to serve another (sometimes unjustly) serves no function relating to respect and honor of those asserting their power.  Human nature should be universal, not defined by higher social order, race, gender, or subjective views. 

Response/Corbin Brassard

I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post titled "Another Interpretation for Plato's Metaphysics".
I too agree that Plato may have formulated his Theory of Forms from a genuine quest to understand the knowledge of objects/ideas/etc that transcends ages using a valid system that could be easily understood.  He falters, however, by removing the aspect of human understanding that is associated with recognition and recall.  Corbin states " its our ability to comprehend the function of the materials that makes it a chair. " Comprehending function is pivotal in giving credit to presence and purpose of any object or thing.  There are copious amounts of undiscovered inanimate and living matter that seem to contradict Plato's theory of forms.  We will undoubtedly categorize these presently unknown things upon discovery by classification of function and purpose.