More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of aristotle philosophy to plato
Difference between the philosophy of aristotle and plato
Comparison of aristotle philosophy to plato
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Aristotle is considered by many to be one of the most influential philosophers in history. As a student of Plato, he built on his mentor’s metaphysical teachings of things like The Theory of Forms and his views on the soul. However, he also challenged them, introducing his own metaphysical ideas such as act and potency, hylemorphism, and the four causes. He used these ideas to explain his account of the soul and the immateriality of intellect.
Prior to Aristotle, philosophers like Parmenides and Heraclitus argued about the existence of change. Aristotle used the terms act and potency to respond to Parmenides arguments about change’s non-existence and bridge the gap between Parmenides and Heraclitus’ polar views. Aristotle used act and potency to examine numerous things such as, motion, causality and metaphysics. He explained that the act or actuality of a thing is its truest way of being and that potency or potential is a things capability of being, further than its current existence. For example, a soccer ball is in actuality on the field; but in potentiality it can be kicked and enter the goal. According to Aristotle’s reasoning, the becoming or change of the soccer ball occurs when a potential is actualized. Though these changes occur, the thing itself stays the same. When the ball is kicked, it loses the actuality of being on the field and gains the actuality of being in the goal; in turn, the ball then loses the potentiality of being in the goal and gains the potentiality of being on the field. Aristotle later explains that the “full reality” of a thing is when the actuality and potentiality of a thing are combined. He notes that while things can be “pure potency,” meaning not actual or real, that there is...
... middle of paper ...
...usible argument. I can see the understanding in both schools of thought. If I were to think logically I would say Aristotle, because he based his conclusions on science and evidence. However, it is their views on the soul where I make my decision on who I (If I had to choose) agree with. I personally believe that the soul, my soul, is something that exists separate from my body. I believe that my body is a temporary and imperfect thing, but that my soul is immortal. I cannot say that I have come to this conclusion because it is the more “plausible” answer, but rather a belief in my faith that this life is temporary and all souls are eternal. While I understand that this view isn’t completely in line with Plato’s, I think Plato’s is closer than Aristotle’s to mine.
Aristotle. "De Anima." Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941.
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.
Baird, Forrest E., and Walter Kaufman. "Aristotle." Ancient Philosophy. 3rd ed. Philosophic Classics, vols. 1. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000. 304 - 444.
Kraut, R., (2014). Aristotle’s Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Available online at URL .
Aristotle argues that in order for a polis to emerge, a union between man and women must convene. Later a household must be introduced which unites with other households to form a village, villages come together to form city-states. This theory is Aristotle’s natural view that an individual can not be self sufficient Plato argues that, in order to achieve absolute justice, a city-state is needed.
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
Political society today, has taken many lessons from Plato and Aristotle’s political ideas. As was the case in Ancient Greece, there are many different political ideologies and regimes that will may serve the purpose for one society, but in another, could cause utter chaos. Aristotle attributed the need for there being a number of political regimes due to the fact that there are “many parts to a city.” (4.3.1) The many parts to a city that he was referring to, simply enforces the necessity of having different forms of office for each of these parts. Not every method will work for each society. Aristotle’s concepts of political regimes have deeply rooted itself in society today. In order to understand the concepts of regime as suggested by Aristotle, this paper will consider the three different types; royalty, aristocracy, and constitutional government, as well as each of their deviations.
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
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.
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
Aristotle’s influence on the Renaissance was immense, and between 1500 and 1650, 6,653 commentaries on his works were produced (Blum, 2010). Aristotle postulated that the requisites for an entity to be natural were that they possessed motion in the sense that they changed in place (e.g. earth falls, fire rises), they grew and decreased (e.g. a seedling turns into a tree), and they underwent alteration (e.g. a caterpillar turns into a butterfly) (Aristotle & Barnes, 1987). This motion, expressed through any of the aforementioned types, was essential to an object’s being. Generally speaking, the origin of this motion can be attributed to the divine spark, existent in every natural being, that instills them with their sense of purpose and self. Since the divine spark connected all natural beings, all natural beings were inherently related. Aristotle’s conclusion from this was that all natural beings, thus interconnected, all possess a dignity that human beings are morally obligated to
Aristotle believes that before the concept of time there were three kinds of substances, two of them being physical and one being the unmovable. The three substances can be described as one being the “sensible eternal”, the second being the “sensible perishable” and the third substance being the immovable. To further this theory the sensible perishable can be seen as matter, the sensible eternal as potential, and the immovable can be seen as that which is Metaphysical and belongs to another science. According to Aristotle, the immovable is God. It is the immovable that sets the sensible perishable into motion and therefore turns the potential into the actual.
Plato vs. Aristotle Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms.
According to Aristotle, things are seen as taking course and will eventually come to a stop when potential is reached. The entire process of potential to actuality is call causation. Aristotle sees human life as the search for happiness and term happiness as the fulfillment of all potential. We are molded through the decisions we make. I see this as a cycle and the cycle is as follows, causation is from potential to actuality, happiness is a fulfillment of potential and education is to develop, cultivate and exercise each child potential up to adulthood. While reading Aristotle principal of potentiality and the principle of actuality, I am reminded of the time I was looking for a house; a real estate agent took me to a house with the inside burnt out. Nothing was left standing in the house but the four walls. The structure of the house was beautiful. The broker turned to me and said “This house has potential” After examining Aristotle philosophy of reality; I see the prospect or potential of the house as the principle of potentiality and the finish product, if I had chosen to buy and fix up this house, the principle of actuality.
Plato and Aristotle both established important ideas about politics and their government. The general idea these two men wrote about were tyranny and the rule of law. What the rule of law is stating is that no one is immune from the law, even the people who are in a position of power. The rule of law served as a safeguard against tyranny because laws just ensure that rulers don’t become more corrupt. These two philosophers explored political philosophy and even though they didn’t agree on much they’re impacts are still around the world today.
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.