It is very interesting that phronesis (wisdom) is defined as a practical and actionable… as opposed to knowledge, true wisdom is knowing what to do.. !<\/p>\n
More:<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n Socrates and the Starting Point:<\/strong> <\/em><\/p>\n Note<\/em>.\u00a0 Aristotle, in\u00a0Metaphysics<\/em>, accredited induction to Socrates:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 for two things may be fairly ascribed to Socrates \u2013 inductive arguments and universal definition, both of which are concerned with the starting-point of science.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plato & Aristotle: <\/strong><\/p>\n Before Aristotle, Plato argued that what we sense is, at best, a pale reflection of a superordinate reality consisting of pure and perfect forms or ideas.\u00a0 Whereas our sensory reality is reminiscent of this higher plane, it is a debased copy that flickers and changes across time and space. For Plato, a transcendental level of perfect forms allowed us to reconcile the presence of that which is immutable and a material world in constant flux.<\/p>\n Aristotle, however, questioned the explanatory value of a higher layer and saw this construct as potentially unnecessary.\u00a0 Plato had suggested that pure forms were superordinate and therefore could not exist within material things.\u00a0 Aristotle, however, wondered if this was so, then how can we gain any knowledge of pure forms?\u00a0 That is, Plato\u2019s definition of forms provided us with no method of connecting material objects to those forms they seemingly reflect. To Aristotle, forms \u2014 in this context \u2014 made no logical sense.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plato and Aristotle appear as arch-exemplars of rationalist-objectivist philosophy; Plato with his preference for visionary theorizing (the turning toward a ‘distant heaven of Forms’), and Aristotle the ‘first scientist’, who spent much of his life analyzing the ‘substances’ of nature (the turning toward ‘earth’).<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Root Dimensions of Being: <\/strong><\/p>\n NOMOS (Culture) <\/span><\/p>\n PHYSIS (Nature) <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Theories & Paradigms: <\/strong><\/p>\n Foucault’s use of episteme has been asserted as being similar to Thomas Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm, as for example by Jean Piaget. However, there are decisive differences. Whereas Kuhn’s paradigm is an all-encompassing collection of beliefs and assumptions that result in the organization of scientific worldviews and practices, Foucault’s episteme is not merely confined to science but to a wider range of discourse (all of science itself would fall under the episteme of the epoch).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Aristotle’s Episteme<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Aristotle (384 – 322 BC)<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Plato (428 – 348 BC)<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n References:<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n Aristotle\u2019s Three Types of Knowledge in The Nichomachean Ethics : “Techn\u00e9, Episteme and Phronesis”.-<\/a><\/p>\n 32. The Bayesian Belief: 6. The Episteme of Aristotle<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.quodlibet.net\/articles\/pietersen-metaparadigms.shtml<\/p>\n http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/episteme-techne\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It might be useful to look at how these two great (somehow contradicting sometimes) philosophers approached the concept of knowledge and knowing. Let’s start with the sooner – Aristotle. Aristotle describes three approaches to knowledge. In Greek, the three are … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Aristotle's](\"http:\/\/think-grow.biz\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/32-aristotle-knowledge.jpg\")
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>