Plato vs. Aristotle
How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
Firstly, Plato's concept of reality contrasts with Aristotle's concept. Plato's theory of ideal forms claims that a perfect world exists beyond the world around us. Our world contains forms imperfectly copied from the ideal forms in the world beyond. In contrast, Aristotle's theory of the natural world states that our world is reality. Aristotle thought the world consists of natural forms, not necessarily ideal or imperfect. Our senses can correctly perceive the natural forms. Basically, reality became a debate between Plato's two worlds and Aristotle's single world reality.
Secondly, Plato and Aristotle contrast in their view of what knowledge we possess at birth. Plato supports the doctrine of Innatism, which claims that we enter this world with prior knowledge. All people possess immortal souls; therefore, the knowledge acquired in one life can be transferred into the next reincarnation. However, we forget the knowledge at the shock of birth and we then spend the rest of our lives trying to retrieve the lost knowledge. In contrast, Aristotle's doctrine of Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, states that we are born without any knowledge. Aristotle also claimed we possess souls, but he disagreed with Plato on the soul's status of immortality. Aristotle felt souls do not return to the world, so knowledge cannot be returned to the world either.
Thirdly, Plato and Aristotle hold contrasting views on the mechanism of finding the truth. Plato relied on the ability to reason in his attempt to explain the world. He produced his ideal world based on reason since such a world lies beyond the realm of the five senses. Plato ignored his senses because he believed his senses only revealed the imperfect forms of the ordinary world.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
For many years humans have pursued the meaning of truth, knowledge and understanding. For many this pursuit of understanding the meaning of truth doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is nourishing to them. Even if this is the case one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be more satisfactory to them. This pursuit of truth does not always have to follow the same path as there may be different ideas for everyone on how truth is actually obtained and which is a better way to obtain the truth is. Two philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce had their own methodologies and ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
For Plato, Forms are eternal and changeless, but there is a relationship between these eternal and changeless Forms and particular things we perceive by means of our senses in the world. These particular things change in accordance to the perceiver and the perceiver’s environment and this is why Plato thought that such things do not possess real existence. For Plato, onl...
Aristotle’s strong belief in logic led his argument in the principle of reasoning and the theory of knowledge. Aristotle believed that humans were born with a blank slate, having minds with no knowledge about anything. He was certain that knowledge is a process that it is acquired over an extended period of time and is not something that humans are born with or can achieve instantaneously. He viewed the human body as a knowledge-seeking tool purposefully made to aid in learning. Aristotle was the forefather in naturalist philosophy; he believed that knowledge was acquired through observation and interaction. He believed in acquiring knowledge through our senses, which is called perception. After perception, one must then be able to retain that knowledge through memory. One must experience those perceptions for oneself in conjunction with memory, the result of which is knowledge. To Aristotle, knowledge was having the ability to understand the essence and universal form of things. Aristotle wanted a way to protect against critics doubt...
Therefore, through the soul, that has been born before being placed into a physical human body, the human has knowledge. As a result of the soul being immortal and knowing everything, Socrates ties that idea of immortality with the theory of recollection, which claims that our knowledge is inside of us because of the soul and it never learns anything new, only remembers, consequently, serving as an evidence that the soul is pre- existent. Socrates uses the knowledge of the soul to explain that there is no such thing as learning but instead there is discovery of the knowledge that one has and does, by himself, without receiving new information. However, most knowledge is forgotten at birth since we are born without knowing, for example, how to add, subtract,talk, etc. Nonetheless, the knowledge we have, has to be recollected with the help of a teacher. Socrates is able to prove this argument to a degree by using Meno’s slave, who had no prior knowledge of geometry before, as an example of how humans have the knowledge inside of them, through the soul, and they know everything but all they need are a sort of guidance to be able to “free” the knowledge they didn’t know they had inside them all this time. (Plato,
Plato, like Pythagoras, believes that knowledge of pure Forms and of “Being” is the direct path to someone living a life of salvation and of the highest quality. Plato, like Pythagoras, also believed that all of the forms are geometric figures and mathematical in nature. Also, Plato, like Heraclitus, believed that our world is constantly changing, or in a constant flux. Plato, also agreed with Parmenides, who believed that the real world is not the same as the world of our experience.
He argues that non-physical forms or ideas represent the most accurate reality. There exists a fundamental opposition between in the world like the object as a concrete, sensible object and the idea or concept of the objects. Forms are typically universal concepts. The world of appearance corresponds to the body. The world of truth corresponds with the soul. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that or property is a tree, house, mountain, man, woman, Table and Chair, would all be examples of existing abstract perfect Ideas. Plato says that true and reliable knowledge rests only with those who can comprehend the true reality behind the world of everyday experience. In order to perceive the world of the Forms, individuals must undergo a difficult
Plato and Descartes have similarities and differences in their views about the intellectual ascent and the ability to achieve certain knowledge and the extent of rationality. Both authors agree that in order to attain certainty, we must look beyond the surface and have a deeper understanding, but Descartes argues that, even then, only a few things can be certain. Also, Plato and Descartes both acknowledge that a higher power is the source of reasoning. However, Descartes believes that God is the perfect being and that we should depend on him for truth and reason whereas goodness is the basis of reasoning for Plato. If we follow Plato and Descartes’ philosophies, then we can bypass solely relying on our senses and be fulfilled intellectuals.
We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.
...ed knowledge beyond ordinary people’s understandings. However, in some ways Aristotle did a better job than Plato. As a result, his ideas will continue to exist in this world for the generations yet to come.
According to Plato, his Theory of Forms states perfection only lives in the realm of thought. There only exists one of every ideal and the rest is just a copy. This one creation is called a form, the most flawless representation of an idea. In the physical world everything is a copy of these forms and all copies are imperfect. Plato believed in two worlds; the intelligible world and the illusionistic world. The intelligible world is where everything is unchanging and eternal. We can only grasp the intelligible world with our mind. It is the world of ideas and not senses. A place where there are perfect forms of the things we know on Earth. According to Plato everything in the world we live in is an illusion. All objects are only shadows of their true forms. His theory further states every group of objects that have the same defying properties must have an ideal form. For example, in the class of wine glasses there must be one in particular that is the ideal wine glass. All others would fall under this ideal form.
Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.
Plato believed that everything had an ideal form, but Aristotle looked into the real world and studied that. Instead of inventing a system of government, Aristotle explored more of practical things that you can realistically put into effect. Aristotle’s main aim was to “consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable”. Meaning that he wanted everyone to be able to relate and adapt to his form of power. He wanted people to be servant to his laws because if the law were an order, it would make a good society. He ended up maintaining a government somewhat like a democracy, where the middle class is strong. Aristotle produced natural domination as one of his biggest theories. Aristotle believed that people were born into being a ruler or in slavery. He wanted people to accept what they are and do what they were born to do. It was the only way that he thought the world would be able to work and not come out with a lot of problems. This is way he believes that everyone is born with a color that tells you your placement in the world. Your placement is not genetic and can’t run in the
Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.
Aristotle argued and disagreed with Plato’s views of the self and soul being a separate from the body. Aristotle’s view is that all humans have a soul, yet they cannot be separate from the body in which they reside. To him, there are four sections of the soul; the desiderative and vegetative parts on the irrational side are used to help one find what they are needing and the calculative and scientific parts on the rational side are