Introduction
Metaphysics is a concept that has a different interpretation depending on the historical period. Aristotle stressed empirical observation and experience as the route to understanding the nature of reality. At the same time, Plato focused on the existence of a world of Forms or Ideas, which he believed to be the ultimate reality. Although they had different perspectives on the nature of reality and how to study it, both thinkers were interested in investigating issues related to the nature of reality and the connection between the physical world and the world of ideas or forms.
Plato’s Metaphysical Approach
His belief heavily influenced Plato’s approach to metaphysics in the existence of a transcendent world of eternal, unchanging forms or ideas. Plato believed that the higher world of forms existed above the physical world, merely a shadow or imitation of it. The idea of hypersensitive and supra-physical space of reality appeared thanks to Plato, who raised the question of whether physical and mechanical phenomena can be finite or are the essence of co-causes accompanying higher causes. Suppose this question is answered from the perspective of natural philosophy. In that case, mechanical and physical causes are finite, and Plato is convinced that something non-mechanical and non-physical can be essentially mechanistic and physical (Chib, 2022).
Based on Plato, the intelligible world is eternal and is always present, while the sensible world exists in the space-time dimension. It is a dynamic image of eternity built on the ideal of the great in the small (Herreros, 2020). Many philosophers believe that sensuality is the seed that gives rise to the cosmos, and the sensual world is compared with the triumph of the intelligible over the blind need of matter (Chaffee, 2015). Meanwhile, Plato argued that immortal souls are born on earth several times and meet the world of sensuality, allowing them to extract the truth from themselves, not forgetting the reality available to them both on the other side and the other.
According to Plato, the concept of an idea means the visible side of things; later, this concept acquired the meaning of the inner essence of things. The second designation is firmly rooted in metaphysical linguistic circulation. Plato supported the metaphysical structure of things (Leung, 2022). His explanations often use words and phrases such as substance, the essence of things, nature, and the actual reality of things. Platonic theory of the integrity of the idea of the One as the principle of being, knowledge, truth, certainty, perfection, substances, and ideas. Moreover, Plato did not forget to mention the Dyad as the principle of plurality, duality, and uncertainty.
Aristotle’s Metaphysical Theory
The metaphysical theory of Aristotle differed from the Platonic, as there are different planes of interest. Aristotle commonly accepted the systematic approach but rejected the Platonic mystical-religious-eschatological structure. He created his philosophical theory in metaphysics and simultaneously turned to empiricism, experience without scientific justification, relying on evidence and rhetorical evidence (Aristotle, n.d.).
The philosophy of physics, according to Aristotle, can be attributed to the second philosophy since the first philosophy studies a supra-physical reality (Unlu, 2021). Aristotle (n.d.) states, “Further, if there is a substance or principle of such a nature as that which we are now seeking, and if this is one for all things, and the same for eternal and for perishable things, it is hard to say why in the world, if there is the same principle, some of the things that fall under the principle are eternal, and others are not eternal; this is paradoxical” (p. 105). Aristotle deified metaphysics as one of the sublime sciences, which has no connection with material needs and does not pursue the goal of solving practical problems.
Comparison
The way that Plato and Aristotle approached metaphysics was fundamentally different from one another in how they viewed causality. Aristotle emphasized the importance of efficient and final causes in explaining how things behave in the natural world. At the same time, Plato held that there is a hierarchy of causes, with the world of forms as the highest cause. In addition to how they approached causality and metaphysics, Aristotle’s and Plato’s philosophical ideas differed significantly.
One significant area of disagreement was their perspectives on the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. According to Plato, knowledge is innate and can be accessed by recollection or remembering. Plato claimed that our souls had knowledge of the forms before we were even born but had forgotten them once we entered the physical world. The philosopher’s job was to recover this lost knowledge using reason and intuition.
Conclusion
Overall, Plato and Aristotle had different ideas about metaphysics despite having the same objective of comprehending reality and its underlying principles. Plato emphasized the significance of the world of forms and the importance of abstract reasoning in understanding reality. In contrast, Aristotle concentrated on the natural world, the value of scientific inquiry, and empirical observation. Therefore, their viewpoints and approaches were very different, even though they were both interested in the same topic.
References
Aristotle. (n.d.). Metaphysics. (Ross, W. D.). Web.
Chaffee, J. (2015). The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking critically about profound ideas. Pearson.
Chib, S. (2022). Metaphysics and it’s relation with medicines: A descriptive review. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 7(3), 948-957. Web.
Herreros, A. (2020). A case study of the reception of Aristotle in early Protestantism: The Platonic idea of the good in the commentaries on the Nicomachean ethics. Renaissance and Reformation, 43(3), 41-69. Web.
Leung, K. (2022). Platonic metaphysics and the ontology of international relations: A sketch. International Relations, 36(2), 176-191. Web.
Unlu, H. (2021). Dynamics and Energeia in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. European Journal of Philosophy, 30(1), 17-31. Web.