Plato, born in 424 B.C. Greece is an iconic philosopher, studying a wide range of subjects and being a student of the great Socrates. Plato is known for his contribution to a wide range of topics in philosophy, the centerpiece of which is considered ethics. Aristotle, born in 384 B.C. Greece was a brilliant person and an excellent physician. However, he chose to pursue philosophy, eventually studying under Plato. Aristotle and Plato notably disagreed on a number of teachings and challenged each other openly. Nevertheless, the iconic status of both philosophers went on to create two distinct schools of thought in philosophy: Aristotelian or Platonist that philosophers to this day tend to support. The writer of this paper identifies as Aristotelian due to the more practical, logical, and relatable elements of Aristotle’s beliefs on a variety of subjects in comparison to the rather abstract and ideological nature of Plato’s arguments.
Philosophy and Ideology
One of the most prominent differences between PlaAristotle’sistotle worldviews and philosophies focused on the Theory of Forms. Attributed to Plato, it is a philosophical paradigm suggesting that the physical perceived world is not as real as absolute unchangeable ideas, referred to as Forms. All objects in the physical world, including humans, have a non-physical essence that is their Form, while the real-world version is just an imperfect imitation. Plato consistently focused on the Theory of Forms, suggesting that Forms are the objects that provide knowledge, and studying them allows one to identify flaws in the real world, taking action to strive towards perfection. Plato maintained an idealistic philosophy and believed that experimental reasoning and metaparer is enough to prove the concept and establish the quality of an object (Miller & Jensen, 2006).
Aristotle strongly critiqued and rejected the Theory of Forms that Plato proposed. The primary difference in opinion lies in the relation of forms to different objects. Plato supported transcendent forms, while Aristotle argued for immanent forms. Aristotle pointed towards empiricism, and that universal forms did not exist, but rather each instance of an object had to be analyzed individually. Aristotle introduces what later became known as hylomorphism, a combination of matter and form. All objects in the real worldmatteredmatter but forms can be causes of things if they are in those things. The Form of something cannot exist without real-world matter, while matter cannot be without form (Miller & Jensen, 2006). For humans, this principle applies to the combination of body, which is matter and soul which is the essence or Form. Aristotle’s approach which then introduces teleological principles is more relatable to reality and can be used to explain the nature of things in the natural world. The immanent form develops the ting into its reality and presents any given object in the complex relationship to the world around. Let it be a simple acorn or a complex human, each has a sophisticated connection to the surrounding environment that justifies the presence of the dual nature of matter and Form.
Arts
The difference between the philosophers transcended even into elements such as the arts, a continuation of their discussion of the Forms. Plato suggested that art is removed from reality, being an imperfect copy of Man, which are in turn imperfect representations of their Forms. Plato strongly the argued for removal of representative arts from his ideal society. Meanwhile, Aristotle suggests that the essence and ideal of things being embodied in these, artistic representations help to understand reality. The artist does not represent subjects in their universality, with the work being subjective and somewhat philosophical as it is not meant to be a detailed account of something but rather the artiartist’sception (Miller & Jensen, 2006). In this context, Aristotle is more relatable, even not being a fan of the arts. For centuries, art has been a form of expression, subjective and philosophical, emphasizing certain elements through metaphor, allegory, and other forms. However, despite art commonly being not a copy of real-life, it helps artists and audiences to reflect on it, drawing out the essence and potential morality of depicted events or people.
Science and Logic
While Aristotle and Plato both believed that reasoning and thoughts were superior to senses, Plato suggested that senses could deceive an individual while Aristotle viewed senses as a tool to determine reality. The famous Platonian allegory of the cave, the world is a cave with shadows cast from outside light, making thoughts the only reality. If following the Aristotelian approach, the individual would have to walk out of the cave and determine what is casting the light and shadows rather than basing theories on indirect and internal experiences. Therefore, using logic Plato was a supporter of inductive reasoning, while Aristotle promoted deductive reasoning. The creation of the theory of deduction, also known as syllogistic is attributed to Aristotle and contributed towards proving many meta-theorems. This reflected in the scientific contributions of the philosophers, while Plato wrote largely exploratory and theoretical texts of mathematics and sciences, Aristotle strongly believed in observation and developed preemptive versions of the scientific method and classification, with many methods seen in modern systems of scientific research (Shields, 2016).
While I recognize the value of inductive reasoning, particularly how it is necessary inforhilosophy but also a number of sciences such as theoretical physics and mathematics, I greatly relate to the Aristotelian approach to science and logic. The deductive approach is necessary in my opinion to observe and make sense of reality, that is then used to draw logical conclusions about other empirical or philosophical aspects of life.
Ethics
In ancient Greek philosophy, ethics encompassed achieving eudaimonia, roughly translated as happiness as in a good human life and development. Happiness could be acquired through virtue, posing the everlasting questions of what a good life consists of and how to achieve the necessary virtues to achieve it. Initially Plato explored virtues of courage, temperance, and piety as some important virtues. In his Republic, Plato introduces justice as a condition of the soul. The just soul is a completely virtuous individual that can balance elements of Reason, Spirit, and Appetite. Reason, in particular, understands what is good for the person and good in general and helps to act within limits. Referring back to the Forms, Plato believed it is necessary to understand the Form of the Good, requiring years of training and self-awareness that are necessary to become completely virtuous, a feat Plato believed only philosophers could achieve (Duignan, n.d.).
Aristotle believed that happiness goes beyond the condition of the soul but is reflective in actions. A good human life must consist of inherently good and characteristically human activity, the primary of which is reasoning. Therefore, a virtuous life is a rational activity of the soul within the parameters of virtues. Aristotle saw multiple types of virtues, such as intellectual virtues the likes of wisdom and practical virtues such as courage. Happiness is achieved after a lifetime of philosophical contemplation, cultivating both intellectual and moral virtues (Duignan, n.d.). Once again, I find myself agreeing with the Aristotelian perspective on ethics and virtue. While Plato’s view has some merit regarding the balance of the three elements in the soul, in my worldview, it is virtuous actions combined with moral integrity that inherently allow to achieve an ethical lifestyle and wellbeing.
Political Theory
The theory of Justice developed by Plato as discussed in the previous section is also meant to apply to politics. There is an analogy between the three parts of the soul and the three classes of Plato’s ideal state – Rulers, Soldiers, and Producers. Similarly, in a just state, the three classes must perform assigned functions and remain in harmony with others, as it is for the good of the state but also for the virtue itself. Plato’s Republic is known for its hostility towards democracy but rather suggests that only Philosophers should rule. However, the ideal state, including the rulers, would be simple and communal with laws in place to guide all aspects of life (Duignan, n.d.).
Aristotle viewed mankind as a “political animal” that is prone to forming political communities, without which they cannot thrive. Politics in itself is the process of forming communities that promote human development. Aristotle sought to classify forms of government based on rule. Aristotle viewed democracy as the rule by a majority for its own interest, essentially being mob rule. However, the rule of majority for the good of all is defined as polity. This definition was never widely accepted. Aristotle argued that monarchy and aristocracy are the best forms of government, but because they often devolve into tyranny or oligarchy, the best alternative is polity (Duignan, n.d.). I find it difficult to relate to Plato’s ideal state as it essentially eliminates all humanity and free will from it. It is a political experiment that not only has no place in reality, albeit society functioning on everyone fulfilling their duties, it is significantly more complex. Despite Plato’s belief, the ruler philosophers would be corrupted by power and without accountability as proposed by Aristotle’s polity, there would not be a just state. I agree with Aristotle that democracy is imperfect but it has potential to create those communities which promote human flourishing.
Discussion
Undoubtedly Plato was a deep source of thought and development in philosophy, building upon the pioneering aspects of his own teacher Socrates. Many ideas and metaphors that Plato introduces hold value and remain true. However, I personally identify as Aristotelian as he seemingly caps off this great trio of philosophers. Some critics see Aristotle as an individual who competently arranged all of the facts and teachings coming before him, contributing little of his own thought and remaining relatively safe in philosophical explorations and teachings unlike his predecessors. To some extent that may be relevant, but it is Aristotle’s pragmatic approach that helped to make sense of things. Aristotle was not just a philosopher but a scientist and political theorist, more traditionally as we know today. In his teachings, one can encounter scholarship, logic, and the scientific method as well deep humanity and maturity. Within practically every aspect discussed in this paper, Plato positions as an idealist, subjective, and portrays philosophical thought in the context of discussion rather than reality. It is rational and logical but does not depend so much on facts as on theory. Meanwhile, Aristotle attempts to ground his reasonings in reality and facts which are more relatable to me personally as philosophy, despite being a relatively abstract field of knowledge, should explore elements that can be practically applied to the real world beyond metaphors.
References
Duignan, B. (n.d.). Plato and Aristotle: How do they differ? Web.
Miller, E. L., & Jensen, J. (2006). Questions that matter: An invitation to philosophy (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Shields, C. (2016). Aristotle. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.