Background on the Philosophy of Truth
Western philosophy considers two different approaches to the topic of reality, such as the nature of reality itself as well as the relationship between the mind, including culture and language, and reality. When studying the relationship between knowledge, truth, and reality, it has been generally stated that the majority of philosophers primarily accepted the Correspondence Theory of Truth. According to the universally-accepted theory, truth is considered something which aligns with reality and the perceived world. Specifically, truth is a characteristic that is applicable to beliefs, statements, and propositions that qualify the sense of reality the way it is in real life. In this sense, beliefs are mental standpoints, statements are either written or verbal representations. At the same time, propositions represent transcendent logical entities that are being transferred with the help of statements and beliefs. Therefore, if a statement of belief or proposition shows reality the way it is in life, then it is actually true. In turn, if it shows the reality that does not match the way it is in life, then it is not true. As suggested by Tarski, the statement “snow is white” can only be true and only true if snow is white.
Dualism
Aristotle and Plato are regarded among the greatest philosophers of the Western world. In the conventional view, Plato’s philosophy is utopian and abstract while Aristotle’s approach has been characterized as practical, empirical, and generally based on common sense. Although such a differentiation fails to consider the continuities between the perspectives of the two philosophers, it suggests that their stances on such issues as knowledge and reality would be different. The specific differences between the approaches that Aristotle and Plato take in their philosophy include forms, ethics, and politics. For the purpose of the present exploration, forms represent the most relevant difference to explore as it is associated directly with the theory of Dualism (Robinson). In the theory, it is stated that the mental and the physical facets are both real, but neither of them can be assimilated into the other. According to Plato, Forms (in his philosophy, the term is usually mentioned in capitals, and the same applies to Plato’s individual Forms). For the philosopher, the Forms represent perfect points of example or perfect types of different forms that can be seen in the world (Robinson). Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory of Forms but not the idea of the form itself. In the philosopher’s view, forms cannot exist independently from the world in general, thus suggesting that every form is the form of something else. The difference between the ways in which Plato and Aristotle approached the theory of forms offers some background into how the philosophers chose their stances on different phenomena and explained them.
Aristotle’s Understanding of Reality and Truth
Considering the varied stances of the philosophers regarding Dualism and the theory of forms, it is essential to differentiate between their perspectives on reality. First, Aristotle’s approach to reality as the natural world will be explored. According to the philosopher, logic is the tool that allows people to know anything. Human knowledge, therefore, aims to find out the features of the things that exist. In the system of thought developed by Aristotle, propositions made in the subject-predicate form are the primary expressions characterizing the truth about the world because they allow transferring the features and properties that are inherent to individual substances (Robinson). The philosopher believed that his logical scheme about reality accurately represented the nature of reality as it is. Starting from simple and basic descriptions of specific things, Aristotle postulated that it was possible to ultimately attain the information that is needed for a detailed and comprehensive view of the universe as it really is. The formal rules for correct reasoning, which is represented by the basic principles of categorical logic, were universally accepted by Western philosophers up until the nineteenth century.
In Aristotelian logic, it was believed that universal truths could be revealed from specific things by means of inductive reasoning. Although, it is essential to note that the philosopher did not take into account the knowledge acquired from inductive logic as scientific knowledge. However, induction was a required preliminary framework for the main bulk of scientific research, providing the primary premises necessary for scientific demonstrations. Considering the principles that the philosopher developed, it is possible to discuss the general account of the account of the operation of individual substances in the natural world. Aristotle made a significant divide between two things, such as those that only when put in movement by something else and those that can move on their own without external facilitation.
The distinctions of things that were offered by the philosopher are also important because they explain why they have the functions that they have. The first crucial distinction is in the difference in the origins of things, as different accounts had to be offered for the functions of natural things and those of artifacts. The second is that a clear differentiation is needed between the form and basic materials, which together represent the nature of any separate thing. The third distinction is that recognition is necessary for acknowledging the variance between things as they are and things considered in the context of their purposes or ends. Thus considering the mentioned differentiations, Aristotle proposed four explanatory causes that can help attain knowledge on reality as explained by the things existing in the natural world.
The first explanatory factor is the material cause, which represents the general stud of which things are made. For instance, the material cause of a house includes the construction materials, which are a part of an explanation of the house because it cannot exist without the materials that composed it. The second factor is the formal cause, signifying the pattern or the essence to which the materials conform when they are assembled together. Taking the hypothetical example of the house, the formal cause is the design and the structure that has been reached through the drafted plans. The third factor explaining reality is the efficient cause, which is the force that has been directly responsible for bringing both the material and form together to make a specific thing. In the house, the efficient cause is represented by the masons and carpenters who worked on building the structure by using construction materials. Lastly, the final cause is the purpose of a thing that exists in the world. In the house, the final cause is to serve as a place of living and shelter for human beings. Therefore, Aristotle’s philosophy of the natural world is explained by looking for the causes of natural phenomena, and all four explanatory factors are essential components of any adequate account regarding the existence and nature of things.
Plato’s Theory of Forms
In contrast to Aristotelian reasoning, Plato’s perspective on reality was based on three crucial metaphysical and abstract views. First, the existence of an immaterial reality is separate from the physical world (Robinson). The second is that there is a radical differentiation between an immaterial soul and the physical body of a being. The third is about the existence of an immortal soul that finds its final accomplishment in the union with the external and transcendent realm of understanding. Within Plato’s Theory of Forms, the world is continuously changing, as reflected by the seasons. Therefore, the reality is never permanent as people pass away, animals and trees live and then die. Even the present world is deceiving as the sense of sight, touch and taste can sometimes offer confusing outcomes from time to time.
Thus, arguing against the approach offered by Socrates, Plato suggested that because the material is changing, it is also unreliable. Moreover, the philosopher believed that the considerations of reality were not limited to that issue. Behind the unpredictable world of appearances, there is also a realm of permanence and reliability. Thus, this world is made up of more real and permanent Forms or Ideas. According to the philosopher, people would make continuous attempts to recreate the Form although they would pale in comparison to the perfect idea, suggesting that all things that are present in the world are imperfect representations of the ideal Form (Robinson). How good the recreation of the Form will be depends on one’s capacity to recognize the proper Form. Even though no one has been able to see the perfect Form, Plato states that this is not an issue. The most important thing is being able to conceive the Idea or Form of an incredible thing in one’s mind, which would make it exist.
The uniqueness of Plato’s philosophical approach to reality and knowledge is that there is no limit to the considerations of the Form. For any conceivable thing or property, there is a corresponding Form that perfectly represents it. Anything, from a cloud to a house, is an example of presumably independently-existing abstract ideas of perfection. Therefore, true and reliable knowledge in the eyes of the philosopher is only attainable to those who are capable of comprehending the true reality behind the world and the mundane experiences that occur on a regular basis. Plato suggested that people had to be taught how they can recall the knowledge of the Forms because it already existed in their minds because their souls had apparently seen the world of Forms before being born. For instance, someone wanting to engage in painting would have to recall the knowledge of Forms of paint, color, shading, canvas, and so on. Following this logic, if one cannot recall the necessary knowledge about reality then they are not suited to be painted, according to Plato. Thus, a very high standard for a certain trade suggests a person’s knowledge of the Form. Since most people cannot be educated about the nature of the Forms because the latter cannot be reached through education but only recalled.
Reference
Robinson, Howard. “Dualism.” Plato Stanford, 2020. Web.