plato vs aristotle essay

Aristotle vs. Plato

Aristotle and Plato were philosophers in ancient Greece who critically studied matters of ethics, science, politics, and more. Though many more of Plato's works survived the centuries, Aristotle's contributions have arguably been more influential, particularly when it comes to science and logical reasoning. While both philosophers' works are considered less theoretically valuable in modern times , they continue to have great historical value.

Comparison chart

Influence of aristotle vs. plato.

Plato influenced Aristotle, just as Socrates influenced Plato. But each man's influence moved in different areas after their deaths. Plato became the primary Greek philosopher based on his ties to Socrates and Aristotle and the presence of his works, which were used until his academy closed in 529 A.D.; his works were then copied throughout Europe. For centuries, classical education assigned Plato's works as required reading, and The Republic was the premier work on political theory until the 19th century, admired not only for its views, but also for its elegant prose.

Aristotle and his works became the basis for the both religion and science, especially through the Middle Ages. In religion, Aristotelian ethics were the basis for St. Thomas Aquinas ' works that forged Christian thought on free will and the role of virtue. Aristotle's scientific observations were considered the last word in knowledge until about the 16th century, when Renaissance thought challenged and eventually replaced much of it. Even so, Aristotle's empirical approach based on observation, hypothesis and direct experience (experimentation) is at least part of the basis for scientific activity in nearly every field of study.

The Works of Aristotle and Plato

Whereas most of Plato's works have survived through the centuries, roughly 80% of what Aristotle wrote has been lost. He is said to have written almost 200 treatises on an array of subjects, but only 31 have survived. Some of his other works are referenced or alluded to by contemporary scholars, but the original material is gone.

What remains of Aristotle's works are primarily lecture notes and teaching aids, draft-level material that lacks the polish of "finished" publications. Even so, these works influenced philosophy, ethics , biology, physics, astronomy, medicine, politics, and religion for many centuries. His most important works, copied hundreds of times by hand throughout ancient and medieval times, were titled: Physics ; De Anima ( On the Soul ); Metaphysics ; Politics ; and Poetics . These and several other treatises were collected in what was called the Corpus Aristotelicum and often served as the basis for hundreds of private and teaching libraries up to the 19th century.

Plato's works can be roughly divided into three periods. His early period featured much of what is known about Socrates, with Plato taking the role of the dutiful student who keeps his tutor's ideas alive. Most of these works are written in the form of dialogues, using the Socratic Method (asking questions to explore concepts and knowledge) as the basis for teaching. Plato's The Apology , where he discusses the trial of execution and his teacher, is included in this period.

Plato's second or middle period is comprised of works where he explores morality and virtue in individuals and society. He presents lengthy discussions on justice, wisdom, courage, as well as the duality of power and responsibility. Plato's most famous work, The Republic , which was his vision of a utopian society, was written during this period.

The third period of Plato's writings mainly discusses the role of arts, along with morality and ethics. Plato challenges himself and his ideas in this period , exploring his own conclusions with self-debate. The end result is his philosophy of idealism, wherein the truest essence of things occurs in thought, not reality. In The Theory of Forms and other works, Plato states that only ideas are constant, that the world perceived by senses is deceptive and changeable.

Differences in Contributions

In philosophy.

Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own. This viewpoint leads to Aristotelian Empiricism. For Plato, thought experiments and reasoning would be enough to "prove" a concept or establish the qualities of an object, but Aristotle dismissed this in favor of direct observation and experience.

In logic, Plato was more inclined to use inductive reasoning , whereas Aristotle used deductive reasoning . The syllogism , a basic unit of logic (if A = B, and B = C, then A = C), was developed by Aristotle.

Both Aristotle and Plato believed thoughts were superior to the senses. However, whereas Plato believed the senses could fool a person, Aristotle stated that the senses were needed in order to properly determine reality.

An example of this difference is the allegory of the cave , created by Plato. To him, the world was like a cave, and a person would only see shadows cast from the outside light, so the only reality would be thoughts. To the Aristotelian method, the obvious solution is to walk out of the cave and experience what is casting light and shadows directly, rather than relying solely on indirect or internal experiences.

The link between Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is most obvious when it comes to their views on ethics. Plato was Socratic in his belief that knowledge is virtue, in and of itself. This means that to know the good is to do the good, i.e., that knowing the right thing to do will lead to one automatically doing the right thing; this implied that virtue could be taught by teaching someone right from wrong, good from evil. Aristotle stated that knowing what was right was not enough, that one had to choose to act in the proper manner—in essence, to create the habit of doing good. This definition placed Aristotelian ethics on a practical plane, rather than the theoretical one espoused by Socrates and Plato.

For Socrates and Plato, wisdom is the basic virtue and with it, one can unify all virtues into a whole. Aristotle believed that wisdom was virtuous, but that achieving virtue was neither automatic nor did it grant any unification (acquiring) of other virtues. To Aristotle, wisdom was a goal achieved only after effort, and unless a person chose to think and act wisely, other virtues would remain out of reach.

Socrates believed that happiness could be achieved without virtue, but that this happiness was base and animalistic. Plato stated that virtue was sufficient for happiness, that there was no such thing as "moral luck" to grant rewards. Aristotle believed that virtue was necessary for happiness, but insufficient by itself, needing adequate social constructs to help a virtuous person feel satisfaction and contentment. It is worth noting that Greek views on these issues were more attuned to Aristotle's views than either to Plato's or Socrates' during their lifetimes.

Plato's contributions to science, as that of most other Greek philosophers, were dwarfed by Aristotle's. Plato did write about mathematics, geometry, and physics, but his work was more exploratory in concept than actually applicable. Some of his writings touch on biology and astronomy, but few of his efforts truly expanded the body of knowledge at the time.

On the other hand, Aristotle, among a few others , is considered to be one of the first true scientists. He created an early version of the scientific method to observe the universe and draw conclusions based on his observations. Though his method has been modified over time, the general process remains the same. He contributed new concepts in math, physics and geometry, though much of his work was basically extensions or explanations of emerging ideas rather than insights. His observations in zoology and botany led him to classify all types of life, an effort that reigned as the basic biology system for centuries. Even though Aristotle's classification system has been replaced, much of his method remains in use in modern nomenclature. His astronomical treatises argued for stars separate from the sun, but remained geocentric, an idea that would take Copernicus would later overthrow.

In other fields of study, such as medicine and geology, Aristotle brought new ideas and observations, and though many of his ideas were later discarded, they served to open lines of inquiry for others to explore.

In Political Theory

Plato felt that the individual should subsume his or her interests to that of society in order to achieve a perfect from of government. His Republic described a utopian society where each of the three classes (philosophers, warriors, and workers) had its role, and governance was kept in the hands of those deemed best qualified for that responsibility, those of the "Philosopher Rulers." The tone and viewpoint is that of an elite taking care of the less capable, but unlike the Spartan oligarchy that Plato fought against, the Republic would follow a more philosophical and less martial path.

Aristotle saw the basic political unit as the city ( polis ), which took precedence over the family, which in turn took precedence over the individual. Aristotle said that man was a political animal by nature and thus could not avoid the challenges of politics. In his view, politics functions more as an organism than as a machine, and the role of the polis was not justice or economic stability, but to create a space where its people could live a good life and perform beautiful acts. Although eschewing a utopian solution or large-scale constructs (such as nations or empires), Aristotle moved beyond political theory to become the first political scientist, observing political processes in order to formulate improvements.

Modern Appraisal of Aristotle and Plato

Though Plato and Aristotle have become directly linked to philosophy and the height of Greek culture, their works are studied less now, and much of what they stated has been either discarded or set aside in favor of new information and theories. For an example of theory espoused by Aristotle and Plato that is no longer considered valid, watch the video below regarding Plato and Aristotle's opinions on slavery.

To many historians and scientists, Aristotle was an obstacle to scientific progress because his works were deemed so complete that no one challenged them. The adherence to using Aristotle as "the final word" on many subjects curtailed true observation and experimentation, a fault that lies not with Aristotle, but with the use of his works.

Among Islamic scholars, Aristotle is "the First Teacher," and many of his recovered works may have been lost if not for Arabic translations of the original Greek treatises. It may be that Plato and Aristotle are now more starting points on analytical paths than endpoints; however, many continue to read their works even today.

Personal Backgrounds of Aristotle and Plato

Plato was born around 424 B.C. His father was Ariston , descended from kings in Athens and Messenia, and his mother, Perictione, was related to the great Greek statesman, Solon. Plato was given the name Aristocles, a family name, and adopted Plato (meaning "broad" and "strong") later when he was a wrestler. As was typical of upper middle-class families of the time, Plato was educated by tutors, exploring a wide range of topics centered largely on philosophy, what would now be called ethics.

He became a student of Socrates, but his studies with the Greek master were interrupted by the Peloponnesian War , which pit Athens against Sparta . Plato fought as a soldier between 409 and 404 B.C. He left Athens when the city was defeated and its democracy was replaced by a Spartan oligarchy. He considered returning to Athens to pursue a career in politics when the oligarchy was overthrown, but the execution of Socrates in 399 B.C. changed his mind.

For over 12 years, Plato traveled throughout the Mediterranean region and Egypt studying mathematics, geometry, astronomy, and religion. In about 385 B.C., Plato founded his academy, which is often suggested to have been the first university in history. He would preside over it until his death around 348 B.C.

Aristotle, whose name means "the best purpose," was born in 384 B.C. in Stagira, a town in northern Greece. His father was Nicomachus , the court physician to the Macedonian royal family. Tutored privately as all aristocratic children were, Aristotle trained first in medicine. Considered to be a brilliant student, in 367 B.C. he was sent to Athens to study philosophy with Plato. He stayed at Plato's Academy until about 347 B.C.

Although his time at the academy was productive, Aristotle opposed some of Plato's teachings and may have challenged the Master openly. When Plato died, Aristotle was not appointed head of the academy, so he left to pursue his own studies. After leaving Athens, Aristotle spent time traveling and studying in Asia Minor (what is now Turkey) and its islands.

At the request of Philip of Macedon , he returned to Macedonia in 338 B.C. to tutor Alexander the Great , and two other future kings, Ptolemy and Cassander . Aristotle took full charge of Alexander's education and is considered to be the source of Alexander's push to conquer Eastern empires. After Alexander conquered Athens, Aristotle returned to that city and set up a school of his own, known as the Lyceum. It spawned what was called the "Peripatetic School," for their habit of walking around as part of their lectures and discussions. When Alexander died, Athens took arms and overthrew its Macedonian conquerors. Because of his close ties to Macedonia, Aristotle's situation became dangerous. Seeking to avoid the same fate as Socrates, Aristotle emigrated to the island of Euboea . He died there in 322 B.C.

Plato - Biography.com
Aristotle - University of Berkeley
Wikipedia: Aristotle
Wikipedia: Plato

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Aristotle vs Plato." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 15 May 2024. < >

Comments: Aristotle vs Plato

Anonymous comments (2).

February 6, 2014, 2:04pm realy explored — 82.✗.✗.66

August 19, 2013, 5:54pm The reference to Plato's 2nd letter, concerning Plato's dialogues representing a "Socrates cleansed and beautified" or "beautified and rejuvenated" (somce translations say "modernized") is not at 341c, but, rather, 314c. Kevin — 174.✗.✗.61

Confucius vs Lao Tzu
Athens vs Sparta
Alexander The Great vs Napoleon Bonaparte
Ethics vs Morals
Nature vs Nurture
Buddhism vs Christianity

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

Aristotle Vs. Plato

This essay will present a comparative analysis of Aristotle and Plato, two of the most influential philosophers in history. It will discuss their differing views on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. PapersOwl offers a variety of free essay examples on the topic of Aristotle.

How it works

Throughout life, one will encounter many different people some with similar views and others with contrasting perspectives on reality. This topic and discussion on life and reality continues to rise debate since ancient times. Some of history’s most influential philosophers that attempt to describe life and reality are Aristotle and Plato. A student may choose to accept the teachings of a mentor or reject, question, and modify what is taught. Aristotle was a student of Plato’s and chose to reject some of Plato’s claims on reality.

Plato argued that reality is a reflection of a higher, spiritual truth, a higher dimension of ideal forms that we can attempt to understand only through philosophical contemplation. Aristotle rejected this argument. Aristotle instead argued that reality existed in the material world itself. He believed that that one could come to know universal truths by observing the material world (Sayre, 2013). Aristotle emphasized that observation was the key to understanding reality, while Plato chose to reject the claim that the world experienced through observation and the senses is what is real. As individuals chose to accept or reject Aristotle’s and Plato’s claims on reality, their views continue to influence the philosophy of contemporary lifestyle with application to concept of science, leadership, life, happiness, and reality overall.

While Plato and Aristotle had differences, they based their theories on four widely accepted beliefs which they would later expand upon. Both Plato and Aristotle argued to define knowledge and to relate knowledge to what is real. Both Plato and Aristotle argued on the following beliefs: First, knowledge must be of what is “real. Second, knowledge must be unchanging such as a fact rather than an opinion. However, these claims raise the question, what is real? It is argued that the world experienced through the senses (sense of taste, sight, touch, smell, and sound) is what is considered “real. Aristotle rejected the claim that knowledge must be of what is unchanging because knowledge itself is changing. On the other hand, Plato chose to reject the claim that the world experienced through the senses is what is real because he believed it is possible for the senses to fool an individual (Sayre, 2013). Actions were taken in an effort to prove these claims and define the reality of forms and knowledge.

As discussed previously, Aristotle studied under Plato but rejected much of his teacher’s views. With this being said, it is necessary to discuss how Aristotle rejected Plato’s Doctrine of Forms. Plato’s Doctrine of Forms expressed the view that abstract universal things (such as the color of whiteness) exist independently of particular physical things (such as white objects). The differences between Aristotle and Plato on these basic conceptual and metaphysical issues influenced Western philosophical thought (Boersema, 2011). Plato claimed that particulars/objects are only rudimentary representations of their Form in part of a universal form. This claim reflects Plato’s idealistic philosophy. Aristotle was more open minded in thought and differed from Plato. Aristotle detached that belief that universal forms were attached to each object or concept and, instead, argued that each case of an object or a concept should be observed and analyzed on its own individual plane. This mentality led to greater experimentation and the concept known known as Aristotelian Empiricism and which contributed greatly to the field of science (Boersema, 2011). One could use an example from an everyday object such as a chair. Aristotle would not view every chair as the same, instead he would analyze each on its own and the purpose for that chair can vary. The chair could be simply used as a seat, a stepstool, a doorstop, storage, or even function as a piece of art. Contrarily, other objects that are not chairs can be used as chairs. For Plato, he required less to establish the qualities of an object. Rather than analyzing each object or concept on its own, experiments in thought and reasoning would be adequate, but to Aristotle, that did not suffice. Aristotle diverged and expanded upon Plato’s thought as Aristotle favored experience through the senses and direct observation mixed with thought and analysis. Plato was more inclined to use inductive reasoning, whereas Aristotle used deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is reasoning that makes broad generalizations from observations, whereas deductive reasoning is more rational in its approach which starts out with a hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a logical conclusion. (Bradford, 2017). A great example utilizing these concepts above were displayed through Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

Cite this page

Aristotle vs. Plato. (2020, Feb 24). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/aristotle-vs-plato/

"Aristotle vs. Plato." PapersOwl.com , 24 Feb 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/aristotle-vs-plato/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Aristotle vs. Plato . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/aristotle-vs-plato/ [Accessed: 19 May. 2024]

"Aristotle vs. Plato." PapersOwl.com, Feb 24, 2020. Accessed May 19, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/aristotle-vs-plato/

"Aristotle vs. Plato," PapersOwl.com , 24-Feb-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/aristotle-vs-plato/. [Accessed: 19-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Aristotle vs. Plato . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/aristotle-vs-plato/ [Accessed: 19-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Plato & Aristotle: ancient philosophical influences

OCR Philosophy

Introduction

Heraclitus was an ancient Greek Philosopher who thought that the world we experience is in a state of constant change which he called ‘flux’. He famously said that a person never steps in the same river twice, since both the river and the person change. Plato interpreted Heraclitus as presenting a challenge to the possibility of gaining knowledge. If everything we experience is constantly changing then we can’t have knowledge since as soon as we know something it has changed.

Both Plato and Aristotle are, in very different ways, attempting to respond to this issue raised by Heraclitus.

Plato thinks that the consequence of Heraclitus’ challenge is that true eternal unchanging knowledge cannot be gained empirically, i.e. from a posteriori observation. Plato concludes that we must give up on the attempt to gain knowledge through experience and look to a priori reason alone.

Aristotle thinks that we can understand the causal mechanism responsible for change and thereby gain true knowledge from experience.

Plato’s rationalism: theory of forms & the cave

Since we cannot gain true unchanging knowledge from the everchanging world we experience, Plato thought that we must not be experiencing the world correctly. Our minds are trapped in a state of ignorance, which is why we experience imperfect, transient and everchanging things in the world of appearance. The true reality must be perfect, eternal and unchanging. Plato calls it the world of forms. True knowledge can only be gained from the world of forms.

In the world of appearances everything we experience is a ‘particular’. Particulars are the objects of everyday experience. They are imperfect representations of the form they partake in from which they gain characteristics. When I look at a tree, I am really looking at the perfect, eternal and immutable form of treeness, but because of my ignorance I see a particular tree which is transient and mutable, it will decay and change into something else as it is in a state of flux. If we see a beautiful painting, we are really looking at the form of beauty but as our minds are trapped in a state of ignorance our perception is faulty and so we perceive merely a particular imperfectly beautiful thing.

The tree gets what little shadowy treeness it has by ‘partaking’ in the form of treeness. It’s like looking at an object in a broken mirror and perceiving a visually distorted version of it. In the case of Plato’s form however, we are perceiving the forms through the broken lens of our ignorant minds.

We get knowledge of the world of forms through a priori reason, not a posteriori empirical sense experience, which reveals merely a vague shadow of the real world (of forms).

Plato illustrates this theory with his allegory of the cave.

Plato asks us to imagine some prisoners (us) in a cave (our reality) who cannot move due to being chained (our minds in a state of ignorance) .

They can only look in one direction at a wall on which appear shadows (the objects we experience) of real objects moving behind the prisoners that they cannot see. Those shadows are all the prisoners have ever known, and so they develop a language to talk about them as if they were real. One day a prisoner escapes (a Philosopher), is temporarily blinded by the sun (form of the Good), and then sees the real world (world of forms). He returns to the cave to explain the truth to the other prisoners, but they cannot understand him.

Experience involves mere shadows of the real and that is why it cannot give us knowledge. Only a priori reasoning involving understanding of the forms can give us knowledge.

Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s rationalism & theory of forms

A common reaction to Plato’s theory of forms is that it lacks empirical evidence.

However, Plato would respond that it’s good his theory has no evidence because evidence cannot be trusted as it is merely shadows of the real world of forms that only a priori reason can discover.

To better criticise Plato requires showing that he is wrong to reject evidence. One way of doing that is by showing how empiricism succeeds, by showing that knowledge can successfully be derived from experience

Plato’s theory lacks empirical validity. Aristotle thought that Plato’s theory of forms was an unnecessary hypothesis , because it has no explanatory power regarding our experience. Plato’s forms are unchanging, but therefore cannot explain the change we experience in the world. Aristotle concluded that the forms are “nonsense, and even if they do exist, they are wholly irrelevant”. Plato’s theory of forms lack empirical validity. This is like an early version of Ockham’s razor and is a general principle in empiricist epistemology, that we should not believe explanations that are unnecessarily complicated, such as a world of forms, when we have a simpler theory that works.

Aristotle’s rejection of Plato depends on the success of his empirical theory of the four causes, or at least on the success of the empirical method. It’s only if empiricism is valid that we can discount Plato’s theory as lacking empirical validity. Aristotle creates an empirical theory called the four causes aimed at gaining knowledge from experience.

The form of the Good & the hierarchy of forms

The form of the good is illustrated by Plato in the cave analogy by the sun, in that it both illuminates and allows us to see the world of the forms, and yet also nourishes and is responsible for all the existence of life and all the other forms. This makes it is the highest form.

Understanding the form of the good makes it impossible for you to do wrong and so Plato says a philosopher with that understanding should rule as a ‘philosopher king’.

Below the form of the good are the higher forms like justice and beauty. They are aspects of goodness; they have goodness in them and is their source.

Below higher forms are lower forms, or forms of phenomena that we experience. For example the form of treeness or catness.

Below that are the actual material objects that we then experience images of. The particular trees or cats that are instantiations (examples) of the lower forms.

Criticism of the form of the good. Aristotle disagrees with Plato’s idea that the cause of immorality is ignorance of the good. Aristotle claims that cultivating virtue is a requirement to do good. Merely knowing what is good is not enough to make yourself morally perfect. We could add evidence to Aristotle’s point, that arguably nowhere in human history has a morally perfect person ever existed.

Plato is either being extremely overly optimistic, or he is just inventing ideas that would justify the type of society he wants, which is philosophers being the rulers. Nietzsche called Plato’s form of the good a ‘dangerous error’ and said that philosophers often invent ideas that suit their emotional prejudices, such as desire for power. They then pretend to have figured out their views through logic and reason.

Furthermore, Aristotle thinks the idea of one unified form of the good doesn’t fit with our experience. It’s simple to see how all the instances of tall things could have a single essence of ‘tallness’, but it’s harder to see how that would work for goodness since different instances of goodness are so radically different. For example, the good in military strategy is how to efficiently kill people, whereas the good in medicine is how to keep people alive Aristotle takes this to mean that there cannot be one unified form of ‘goodness’.

The third man argument

This is a criticism of Plato’s theory of forms. Plato claims that if there is a group of things which share characteristics, like a group of trees, then the explanation is that they must all be partaking in a form of treeness. However, Aristotle argues that we then have a new group of things which share characteristics, the trees and the form of treeness, which according to Plato’s logic must therefore have a form in which they partake, yet that simply creates a new group of things which share characteristics which require another form and so on ad infinitum (forever – an infinite regress). This seems to undermine the idea of the forms that there is a particular single form of a quality that explains the multiple particular instances of that quality we experience in the world of appearances.

Plato responds that forms cannot partake of anything but themselves. Since things share characteristics by partaking in a form, yet forms themselves cannot partake in another form, it follows that forms cannot share characteristics with particulars.

The third man argument thus rests on a misunderstanding of the relationship between forms and particulars. The particulars partake in a form because they are imperfect copies of it, but the forms themselves cannot then be grouped with the particulars since they are what the particulars really are. It makes no sense to group some things together with what they really are since that’s not really a group.

Plato therefore successfully counters the third man argument by blocking the attempted first grouping of a form with particulars and thus showing how an infinite regress does not occur.

Plato’s argument from recollection

The argument from recollection is one of Plato’s arguments for the existence of the world of forms and also the existence of the soul.

Plato points out that we somehow do have knowledge of perfect, eternal and unchanging concepts. These include concepts like perfect beauty and justice. We also have perfect mathematical concepts and geometric concepts such as the idea of a perfect circle or two sticks being perfectly ‘equal’ in length. We have never experienced perfect beauty, justice or a perfect circle. So, we must have gained this knowledge a priori. In The Meno Plato tells the story of how Socrates proved that an uneducated slave boy could be prompted by a series of questions and some shapes drawn in the sand to figure out how to solve a geometry question. The slave boy must therefore have been born with geometric concepts.

Plato then seeks to explain how we could have been born with these concepts. His answer is that we must have somehow gained these concepts before we were born. It follows that there must be a part of us (our soul) which existed in a realm where there were perfect forms. In the world of forms there are perfect mathematical forms and perfect forms like the form of beauty and the form of justice.

We are born with a dim recollection of the forms because our soul apprehends them before becoming trapped in this world of appearances. Anamnesis is the process of re-remembering these forms through a posteriori sense experience.

Plato concluded that the source of knowledge must therefore be a priori, making him a rationalist

The consequence is that there must be a world of perfect and unchanging (immutable) forms, which he called the World of Forms. It is not a distant or other world – it is the true reality. What we see (the world of particulars/appearances) is not the true reality. Everything we experience is a vague shadow of what it really is; a perfect form.

P1. We have a concept of perfect justice and beauty and perfect mathematical concepts. P2. We have never experienced perfect instances of such things. C1. So, our knowledge of perfect concepts must be innate. C2. Therefore there must be a world of forms and we must have a soul which gained perfect concepts from it before we were born.

Justice and beauty are subjective. We could deny P1 by arguing that beauty and morality are subjective; in the eye of the beholder. They seem like matters of opinion, not fact. It seems to be culture that determines and conditions what a person finds beautiful or just and as a result, views on what is beautiful or just change over time and differ cross-culturally. So, everyone has a different concept of perfect beauty or justice which makes it not objectively perfect.

Maths is not subjective. Perfect Plato’s examples of perfect circles and the idea of lines that are perfect equal can get around this issue, however. It is much harder to argue that mathematics is subjective.

Hume responds that we can actually create the idea of perfection in our minds even if we have never experienced it. We have take our concept of ‘imperfect’ and simply concieve of its negation: ‘not imperfect’ to gain the concept of ‘perfect’.

Furthermore we could add to Hume’s point that mathematical knowledge could come from experience. The slave boy may not have had any mathematical training, but he had seen shapes of objects in his life – thereby gaining concepts of shape and geometry from experience. This gave him a basic conceptual understanding that Socrates’ questioning brought out and clarified.

Finally, even if Plato was correct that we were born with perfect concepts, it doesn’t mean a soul and world of forms is the only or even best explanation. Evolution could have programmed us to have a sense of morality, beauty and the evolution of intelligence could explain being born with mathematical ability.

Aristotle’s empiricist teleology

The four causes.

Even though the world we experience is in a state of flux, we can gain knowledge about it if we analyse and understand the causal process which explains the change that occurs. If an empirical theory like Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is successful, then Plato’s theory is wrong because Plato thought we could not gain knowledge from experience.

Actuality is the way something is in its current state. Potentiality is the way actual things could become given certain conditions. If certain conditions are met, it will change to its potentiality and that will become its actuality. For example, a seed has the potential to become a tree but only if certain conditions are met will that potential become actual. To go from cause to an effect something must change by going through 4 causes. A thing changes towards its telos – the final end towards which something is directed due to its nature.

Material cause: what a thing is made of. E.g. the material cause of a chair is whatever it is made from, such as wood or plastic.
Formal cause: what the essence or defining characteristic of a thing is. E.g. the formal cause of a chair is its shape.
Efficient cause: what brings the being into existence. E.g. the efficient cause of a chair is whoever made it.
Final cause – telos (purpose): the end goal of a thing. The final state which a thing is disposed towards by its nature. E.g. the final cause of a chair is to be sat on.

Aristotle thought that all change in the universe can be explained by these four causes, thereby allowing a posteriori knowledge to make sense of the flux. Example of a chair. The change of a piece of wood into a chair involves the four causes.

Aristotle does not reject the idea of form itself, but only the separation of form from things. On Aristotle’s view, a thing’s form or formal cause is its essence; its defining quality that makes it what it is. This also led Aristotle to reject Plato’s mind-body dualism, since the form of a human (rational thought) cannot be separated from their body.

Aristotle went on to argue that the final cause of the universe must be a prime mover.

Purpose is unscientific. Francis Bacon (17 th century), called the father of empiricism, was instrumental in influencing the development of modern science. He criticised Aristotle, claiming that final causation (telos/purpose) has no place in empirical science but is a metaphysical issue, since purpose is a divine matter.

Modern science goes even further than Bacon in its rejection of formal and final causation. A deterministic universe operating by the laws of physics seems to be completely without purpose. All supposed telos of an object can be reduced to non-teleological concepts regarding the material structure of an object. This suggests there is no basis for grounding telos in God as Christians like Aquinas did, or in grounding it as a required explanation of change like Aristotle did. Modern science can explain the change and apparent purpose in the world without telos.

For example, Aristotle would regard the telos of a seed as growing into a tree/bush. However, we now understand the seed’s ability to do that as resulting from its material structure, not some notion of a telos.

McGrath points out that modern Christian philosophers (e.g. Swinburne & Polkinghorne) have argued that science is limited and cannot answer all questions. It can tell us the what but not the why . Science can tell us what the universe is like, but it cannot tell us why it is this way, nor why it exists. It cannot answer questions about purpose and therefore cannot be used to disregard the existence of purpose.

Dawkins responds that the ‘why’ question is valid regarding scientific explanation, but when we ask ‘why’ about purpose it becomes ‘a silly question’. Just because a question can be phrased using the English language, that doesn’t make it valid. Dawkins makes an analogy: ‘what is the color of jealousy?’ That question is assuming that jealousy has a color. Dawkins seems to be claiming that questions of purpose also assume that existence or human life has a purpose over and above scientific explanation, but there’s no evidence for that.

Dawkins accepts there may be limits to science and that where the laws of physics came from may be one of them. However he points out that scientists may one day actually solve that problem, but if they don’t, that doesn’t justify a non-scientific explanation of purpose.

At the very least, the current scientific understanding of the universe works without the need for any kind of telos. A century after Bacon, Laplace wrote a book on the workings of the universe, claiming to have ‘no need’ of the hypothesis that there is a God. More recently, Stephen Hawking made the same claim.

Sartre’s critique of telos

Sartre argued that there was no objective telos/purpose because “existence precedes essence” meaning humans exist before they have a defined purpose and so have to subjectively define their purpose for themselves. Sartre’s argument was a psychological one, that people cling to fabricated notions of objective purpose like religion or Aristotle’s ‘final cause/telos’ because they are afraid of not having a purpose, more specifically they are scared of the intensity of the freedom that comes from having to create their own purpose which Sartre thought led to feelings of abandonment (by God/objective reality), anguish (over the weight of being completely responsible for your actions) and despair (over our inability to act exactly as we’d like due to the constraints of the world). It’s much easier to believe in objective purpose than face that existential angst.

Defence against Sartre: As Sartre’s argument is psychological, he does not provide metaphysical grounds for rejecting telos and so is arguably committing the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is assuming that the way in which someone comes up with a theory is relevant to whether it is true or false. Just because people have a psychological need to believe in objective purpose, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

However, this criticism of Sartre is unsuccessful because it is a misunderstanding of his argument. Sartre’s starting premise is that there is nothing in our experience of our own mind which suggests we have a telos. All that we experience is ‘radical freedom’ – a sense that every choice we make is completely up to us because there is nothing in our experience like God or telos which could influence or guide that choice. So Sartre is using a kind of a posteriori approach like Aristotle but coming to a different conclusion.

Aristotle on form and his understanding of the soul

Form means essence, which is a thing’s defining characteristic. For a chair, its defining characteristic would be its shape, a shape that can be sat on. However, the essence of a human is not merely its shape. Aristotle claimed the defining feature of a human being is the ability to reason. Aristotle claimed that the soul was the formal cause of the body.

Formal causation is unscientific. F. Bacon was called the father of empiricism for establishing the modern scientific method. He claimed that formal causation is a metaphysical matter that was beyond empiricial study. He gave the illustration of the ‘whiteness’ of snow and explained how science could investigate how snow results from air and water, but this only tells us about its efficient cause, not its colour, the form of ‘whiteness’, which is beyond scientific investigation. So Bacon thought that form existed, but Aristotle was wrong to think science could study it it.

Modern science goes much further than Bacon in its rejection of formal causation, arguing that we have no reason to think it exists at all. The idea that colour is a ‘formal cause’ of an object is now much better understood to be a matter of the activity of particles like atoms and photons, which can be fully explained through efficient and material causation. So what Aristotle thought of as ‘form’ actually reduces to material and efficient causation.

For Aristotle, the form of a human is a rational soul, but most neuroscientists would claim that rationality reduces to material brain structure and its physical processes. So again, what Aristotle thought of as ‘form’, actually reduces to material structure. There appears to be no room left in modern science for formal or final causation.

Science cannot currently explain how consciousness or reason reduces to material brain processes, however. The brain is so complicated and while some of it is understood a bit, processes like reason and consciousness have not even begun to be understood. So modern science cannot yet justifiably dismiss Aristotelian soul & form as the explanation of reason.

However, there is scientific evidence at least linking the brain to reason, since if the brain is damaged then reason and other mental faculties can be damaged too. Since there is so much about the brain we don’t understand, it’s more reasonable to think that mental faculties like reason are reducible to the material causation of brain processes in a way we don’t yet understand, rather than requiring some other type of physical explanation such as Aristotelian form since there is no evidence for that.

Aristotle’s theory of the Prime Mover

Aristotle’s argument for the prime mover resulted from applying the four causes to the universe. The Material cause of the universe is determined by the constituent elements of matter and the ether (the space between matter). The Formal cause of the universe is in the essential nature of things, such as the nature of stars to rotate.

The Efficient cause in the universe. Aristotle had a geocentric view of the universe; that the earth was in the centre of it. He thought the movement of the stars moves the ether which moves the rotation of the planets which maintains changes in the planet’s atmosphere, which maintains the processes of change on the earth.

Aristotle observed that if an object is moved, it keeps moving and then stops. He concluded that objects which are moved simply run out of movement after a while and return to what he thought must be the natural state of objects: at rest. He therefore thought that motion (the world of flux) requires explanation. It was this view which led to his inference of the existence of a prime mover of the universe

Aristotle then questions what maintains the motion of the stars, inferring that there must be something moving them which itself must be unmoved. The cause of the motion of the stars and thereby all movement on earth must itself be unmoved, or its movement would require merely another mover. There cannot be an infinite chain of motion as that would never get started.

This prime mover must therefore have been unmoved and therefore cannot change. It is therefore pure actuality. So, it cannot be material since it seems all material things are subject to change. It must be a mind, but arguably it cannot be thinking about anything happening outside itself since such things are subject to change and its thoughts would change if their object changed. So it must be eternally contemplating itself.

The prime mover is that unmoved mover and the final cause of the universe. It is not the efficient cause of the universe, since Aristotle believed the universe was eternal. The Prime Mover is responsible for the everlasting motion and change of the universe. Since it cannot be moved, it cannot change and is thus pure actuality.

The way the prime mover sustains the change in the world must therefore be due to some sort of attraction of the things in this world to it. Things in our universe are attracted to the prime mover in a sort of orbit. That is how the prime mover sustains the pattern of change from actuality to potentiality in our universe. Things move towards their telos (purpose).

Newton challenged Aristotle’s belief that an object which is moved will simply stop moving by itself. Newton claimed instead that when moved, an object will move until met by an equal and opposite reaction. The problem with observing this is that on earth, the strong gravity and effect of friction amounts to an equal and opposite reaction on the movement of an object which causes it to stop. It doesn’t just stop by itself due to rest being its natural state, as Aristotle thought. This means that Aristotle’s inference that the constant motion in the universe must be maintained by something like a prime mover is false.

Newton’s ideas are most clearly illustrated in the example of a vacuum – space. In outer space where there is less gravity and friction, pushing an object in a certain direction will cause it to move in that direction potentially forever, unless it happens to hit another object or is pulled off course by the gravity of something like a planet.

Aristotle only believed in empirical observation, not empirical experiment. For two thousand years people believed Aristotle, until Newton. Aristotle’s views on formal & final causation and the prime mover are considered completely wrong by modern science, as are Plato’s views, so arguably neither are better?

Defence of Aristotle’s a posteriori method: However, while Aristotle was not truly scientific in the modern sense, nonetheless he believed in empirical observation which created the epistemological method which would lead to modern scientific methods and the resulting fuller picture of reality we have today. In fact it was Aristotle’s a posteriori approach involving empirical observation that led to Newton’s discoveries. So Newton only disproved Aristotle’s claims about reality, he did not disprove Aristotle’s a posteriori approach to understanding reality, in fact Newton used a developed form of that himself.

Extra credit:

Plato’s one over many argument.

This is an argument for the world of forms. Plato points out that we can conceptually divide the world up into categories like tree, table, beauty, justice, etc. We can only categorize things if we can recognize that they share something in common. The fact that we can recognize that all trees (for example) share something in common, shows that there must be an abstract quality of treeness. Since no particular tree is identical to this abstract quality, it must exist separately. Plato doesn’t see how we could recognize a tree unless we already have in our mind a perfect abstract ideal of a tree; an idea of ‘treeness’, with which we can recognize a particular tree due to it being an imperfect representation of treeness. Since the world of appearances is in flux, how is it that we manage to recognize different things through categorisation? Since the river we step into the second time is no longer the same river as the first, it seems impossible to think of the world in an orderly categorized way if all we have to go on is a world of flux. Yet, we do, and therefore we must be born with the concepts of treeness, beauty, etc. So, Plato concludes we must have a dim recollection of the forms of which the particulars in the world of appearances share some dim shadow-like characteristics by which we are able to recognize and categorize them.

Aristotle’s response to Plato’s One Over Many argument. Aristotle does not object to the idea of form itself, but only to the separation of form from things, which Plato’s one over many argument and theory of forms does. On Aristotle’s view, a thing’s form is its essence; its defining quality that makes it what it is. For example, form of a tree would be the quality essential to being a tree. The essential quality of treeness that a tree has cannot possibly be separated from a tree, otherwise it would not be a tree. So, there is no basis for thinking that the form of ‘treeness’ is a separate entity in another realm.

Wittgenstein’s Criticism of the One Over Many argument. Wittgenstein argued that there is no precisely definable form or abstract ideal of a category. He gave an example of a family picture. There are similarities between the members of the family, but it would be absurd to suggest that recognition of that required understanding of or the existence of perfect abstracted form of that family or that there even is such a thing as an abstracted form of that family. Instead, Wittgenstein argued we recognize someone as a member of a family due to their family resemblances . Similarly, we recognize a member of a category as such due to its family resemblances to other things in that category. The world is not a set of definable categories which the human mind can perfectly divide up. It’s not clear where the boundary between tree and bush are for example, in some species. Humans divide the world linguistically and conceptually in a disorganised haphazard way when it is useful for us within our social context, not according to objective categories of reality. The categories are determined by social convention, not objective reality. Categories are not metaphysical, they are conceptual schemes mapped onto a human experience of the world for the purpose of performing a specific function or use. As such, they have indeterminate boundaries and are subject to revision. What someone decides to call a tree might depend on the use for which the category ‘tree’ has in their social environment. There is no perfect form of ‘treeness’.

Quick links

Year 12 philosophy topics: Plato & Aristotle. Soul, Mind & Body. Design/Teleological argument. Cosmological argument. Ontological argument. Religious experience. Problem of evil.

Year 13 philosophy topics: Nature & Attributes of God. Religious language. 20th Century philosophy of language.

OCR Ethics OCR Christianity OCR essay structure OCR list of possible exam questions

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Plato — The Views Of Plato And Aristotle On What Is A ‘Good Life’

The Views of Plato and Aristotle on What is a 'Good Life'

Categories: Aristotle Plato

About this sample

Words: 1418 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1418 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Introduction, works cited.

Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics.” Core Texts Reader, edited by John Mayfield et al., vol. 1, XanEdu, 2013, p. 75.
Macintosh, David. “Plato: A Theory of Forms.” Philosophy Now: a Magazine of Ideas, 2012, philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms.
Plato. “Apology.” Core Texts Reader, edited by Rosemary Fisk et al., vol. 1, XanEdu, 2013, p. 21.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 485 words

3.5 pages / 1553 words

3 pages / 1300 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Plato

Plato was one of the most important philosophers in the Western tradition. He lived in the 4th century BCE and was a student of Socrates. Plato wrote extensively on many topics, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and [...]

The Allegory of the Charioteer by Plato is a profound philosophical metaphor that offers valuable insights into the nature of the human soul and the pursuit of knowledge. In this allegory, Plato presents a vivid image of a [...]

In the search for a just society, philosophers have long debated the nature of justice and its role in shaping the ideal community. In his renowned work, "The Republic," Plato introduces the concept of Kallipolis, a hypothetical [...]

Plato's dialogue "Airs, Waters, Places" is a significant work in the field of ancient Greek philosophy, addressing the impact of environment and geography on human behavior and culture. In this essay, we will analyze the key [...]

A seemingly excited lad initiates Plato’s Meno. Meno appears to have learned what virtue is and is eager to share this knowledge with the renowned Socrates. Thus, Meno tactically lays out calculated questions to Socrates: [...]

The synopsis of The Matrix and the readings from Platos and Descartes all have similarities as well as differences. One thing that all three of these writings have in common is the topic. The synopsis of The Matrix and the [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Critically compare Plato’s philosophical approach with that of Aristotle. [40]

Plato and Aristotle are usually understood to have completely contrasting philosophical approaches. Although Plato was Aristotle’s teacher at the Academy in Athens, Aristotle rejected Plato’s focus on metaphysics and reason, choosing instead to explore the limits of Physics and observation. Clearly, Aristotle’s philosophical approach has more influence today. While modern science has moved way beyond some of the theories which Aristotle proposed on the basis of observation – such as that the universe is infinite, that birds turn into fish and that men implant a “homonucleid” in a woman’s womb – scientific method still accepts Aristotle’s claim that knowledge must begin with observation and that reason must not stray too far from what can be observed, into the realm of speculation. Nevertheless, and despite the continued popularity of the naïve materialism that emerged out of Aristotle’s philosophical approach, relatively recent developments in philosophy and science have shown that it is Plato’s philosophical approach which is more compelling.

Aristotle’s philosophical approach was supported by Locke, Hume, Kant & Ayer. All of these philosophers dismissed Plato’s claim that human beings are born with innate ideas which we “remember” through rational reflection. Instead, like Aristotle, John Locke argued that human beings are born as tabula rasa – blank slates – and that all our knowledge comes from sense-experience, as processed and interpreted by reason. Hume essentially agreed, as did Kant – who also limited possible knowledge-claims to the synthetic and the analytic – and later Hume’s biographer AJ Ayer in the 20 th Century. The very idea that human beings could source new knowledge in rational reflection without relying on sense-experience seemed to open the door for unsupported speculation, the opposite of knowledge and probably a barrier to attaining it. Nevertheless, despite the common-sense appeal of empiricism, it has come under attack from several directions. Firstly, the idea that the only meaningful knowledge-claims are those which can be verified through sense-experience (or are tautologies) was shown to be narrow and impractical. Aristotle’s attempt to build out from sense-experience to demonstrate the necessary existence of a Prime Mover and a common human telos in which to ground a universal, absolute system of moral philosophy was widely criticised during the Enlightenment and then into the 20 th Century. Descartes and Berkeley pointed out the problems with relying on sense-experience at all. The way I see things is not necessarily the way that they are; the senses are limited and frequently faulty. Further, there is no way to prove that the exterior world is real, not a dream-world and permanent; as Descartes pointed out, the only thing that I can know with certainty is cogito ergo sum . David Hume himself pointed out additional assumptions on which Aristotle’s reasoning rests, that our limited observations support universal claims about natural laws and that the impression of order and teleology is not just that, an impression. Cartesian scepticism, Berkeley’s idealism and even Hume’s epistemology point to the shortcomings of Aristotle’s philosophical approach and Descartes and Berkeley’s arguments at least lend support to Platonic rationalism.

Secondly and despite the “liberalisation of empiricism” to include discussions of topics like history that are only weakly verifiable, the focus on sense-experience as the only source of new knowledge excludes important areas of human discussion – and experience – such as religion and morality. Further, as erstwhile Logical Positivist Karl Popper pointed out, modern science cannot function under a verificationist approach to knowledge. For example, quantum particles are changed by the act of observing them, demonstrating that the senses do not offer the transparent window on external reality that Aristotle or later empiricists and positivists claimed. Also, as GE Moore pointed out, there is no way to prove that “this is a hand”… at some point the attempt to describe and communicate about sense-experience relies on concepts and conventions, as Hume previously acknowledged when he pointed out that properties like colour are secondary, not primary qualities and this depend on the way we see things, not the way they really are. It is true that Popper’s falsificationism does not stray too far from that which can at least in principle be experienced through the senses… and certainly does not seem to offer much support to Plato’s rationalism… but it allows for beliefs to be accepted as knowledge providing that criteria for their falsification are accepted. In the scientific sense, falsification allows for scientists to speculate about the origins and fundamental nature of the universe and about multiverses – none of which can ever be directly observed – if they define the circumstances under which they would modify or abandon their theories. In a broader sense, falsification enables people to propose moral laws meaningfully – laws which could never be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted – providing that they would be willing to accept falsifying evidence. Alternative theories of knowledge, such as Quine’s holism, recognise the need to include all of human experience rather than just to focus on sense-experience, seeing mathematics as close to the centre of the “web of human experience”, and as such show that Aristotle’s narrower approach has been superseded. The general rejection of the Verification Principle and the move to find other approaches to knowledge and meaning in the mid-20 th century points to the fact that relying on the empirical senses as the source of all new human knowledge – as Aristotle and the empiricists did – is limiting and leads to an impoverished world-view.

Today, Plato’s is a more convincing as an approach to Philosophy than Aristotle’s, because he recognised that reason offers people a better means of understanding things as they really are… although he probably was too confident about how far this could go. As Descartes pointed out in the 17 th Century, reality goes much deeper than superficial appearances. This begins with all the assumptions people made for millennia – that the earth is flat, the centre of the universe, orbited by the sun and stars in fixed orbits – and includes assumptions that even scientists still make every day – that matter is real, that the way we see things is the way they are, that this part of the universe is a fair sample of a homogenous whole. To the sceptic, everything in the world of appearances is open to question and nothing is known for certain. Nevertheless, starting with the foundational claim that I exist as a thinking being, we can have certain a priori knowledge of mathematics, which does more to explain the reality of the universe than ever can direct observations, as theoretical physicists will confirm. This shows that Plato’s rationalism is more compelling, because it supports current thinking in Mathematics, Theoretical Physics, Particle Science and Cosmology.

In addition, seeing thought and reason as primary also makes more sense of the broader experience of being human. Plato’s dualism, his suggestion that soul/mind and physical body are separate and even separable, remains far more popular than Aristotle’s suggestion that the soul and body are one and inseparable. Despite Aquinas’ attempt to argue that an Aristotelian “soul” could be transferred to a new “heavenly” body in an afterlife, this raises more questions than it solves. The belief in the afterlife, a belief which is extremely widespread, consistent and persistent and even, as Kant argued, required to explain the freedom we all experience as human beings, is much better supported by Platonic dualism than by Aristotlelian monism. Most people experience a continuity of personal identity and sense of self from early childhood to death. If the soul is the “formal cause of the body” and the body changes radically over time then we might expect the soul to change as well… but it is consistent. Most people would agree that changes to the body – becoming a paraplegic for example – has little or no effect on the soul or sense of self, which we might expect to alter if the soul was just the formal cause of the body as Aristotle proposed. Clearly, if Aristotle was here to defend himself he might point to the effects of traumatic brain injury or dementia, suggesting personal identity depends on the brain as a physical organ and is in no way separate or separable. As Gilbert Ryle said, Plato’s talk of souls could rest on a category mistake; the soul could be no more than a “ghost in the machine”. And yet, to dismiss all the evidence for out-of-body and near-death experiences just because it cannot be empirically verified would be hasty. Recent medical studies by Dr Sam Parnia (AWARE and AWARE II) suggest that the evidence better supports the brain mediating rather than generating the mind. To use Plato’s own allegory of the cave, might dismissing reports of a metaphysical reality and attacking those who make them be rather like the prisoners in the cave threatening the one who escaped and returned? Are we satisfied to stay chained in the shadows, blocking out any evidence that could expand our world-view, or are we brave enough to contemplate the possibility of a bigger reality beyond? Plato’s dualism is more persuasive than Aristotelian materialism, because it accounts both for the experience of being human and research into Out of Body and Near Death Experiences.

Further, Plato’s world-view makes more sense of the human experience of morality than does Aristotle’s. Both GE Moore in his “Principia Ethica” (1903) and later Iris Murdoch in her “Sovereignity of the Good” (1970) pointed out that we recognise goodness when it cannot be reduced to what is useful or makes people happy. Not to be distracted by Plato’s language in relation to the forms, it is fair to say that there is an ideal of goodness which people experience as a rational intuition. Kant described this in terms of the moral law, which appeals directly to reason as a synthetic a priori and shows all thinking people their duty to act transparently, on principle and with non-preferential humanitarian love. Modern proponents of Natural Law like John Finnis explain what Aquinas called conscientia , the inbuilt desire to follow the direction of synderesis or what Aristotle called phronesis , in these terms. It is difficult to explain why the way people do behave is the way they ought to behave without appealing to reason, to the sort of rational intuitions which Plato sought to explain. The existence of a “form of the good”, howsoever this is described, explains the existence of the universal human virtues which CS Lewis and Alastair MacIntyre described and the absolute authority of agape-love which Joseph Fletcher appealed to. Iris Murdoch developed her own version of Platonism in which she also proposed that human beings share rational intuitions of “forms” such as goodness and beauty. This, she argued, explains why human beings seem to share the same ideas of what is good and beautiful, despite cultural and/or historical distance between them. CS Lewis made a similar point in his “Mere Christianity” (1953), pointing out that ideas of justice exist in a similar way across time and the world. This suggests that Plato’s philosophical approach makes more sense of human experience than scientific materialism, based on Aristotle’s philosophical approach, which tries to reduce morality and aesthetics to utilitarianism or evolutionary advantage.

Finally, the existence of innate ideas explains human language acquisition more convincingly than any other hypothesis. As Noam Chomsky argues, human beings seem hard-wired for language, sharing a common conceptual and grammatical framework which needs only to be expressed through the conventions of a particular language. Infants acquire language much more quickly than we might expect and non-human species (like chimps, dolphins and parrots) face an insuperable obstacle to using language rather than just naming things. That no animal can talk is about much more than their lack of verbal dexterity, it is about their lack of the necessary neurological structures. As Wittgenstein remarked in a different context, if a lion could talk we could not understand him. Nativist theories of language acquisition like that of Chomsky would say that this is because the lion’s language would employ a whole other conceptual and grammatical framework as well as because the lion’s form of life is necessarily alien. This shows that Plato’s philosophical approach, and particularly his belief in innate ideas, accounts for the evidence concerning human language acquisition better than Aristotelian materialism has.

In conclusion, despite the continued popularity of Aristotle’s philosophical approach, recent developments in both science and philosophy suggest that it is Plato’s approach which holds more interest going forward into the 21 st century and beyond.

Plato and Aristotle: A Comparison of Epistemologies

Epistemology comes from two Greek words- episteme (knowledge) and logos (reason, word, study), which taken together means study of knowledge. Within philosophy, epistemology is the process of understanding “How one knows something” or “What is happening in our minds” when the person knows something. In this essay, I will compare the epistemologies of Plato and Aristotle.

To understand Plato’s epistemology, one first must understand his psychology of the human person. Psychology, the study of the mental states or processes, of the person for Plato is a tri-part division of reason, passion and appetite. His psychology states all of these parts are necessary but not equal in value. Reason, represented by the philosopher-king, is the highest in value because reason has access to both the sensible and intelligible realms of knowledge. Reason within the intelligible realm knows the Forms. A characteristic of these Forms is that Ideas (eidos) have a feature that is expressed in a fully infinite, non-partial way. There is also a Form of the Form which is in the Good.

Plato uses three analogies to demonstrate his epistemology. The first is the analogy of the Sun. The light from the Sun shines on objects so that one can see them. In like manner, The Form of the Good, illumines the other forms such as the Form of Truth, the Form of Beauty or the Form of Justice, so that one can understand them. The second analogy of The Line, shows the progression of knowing. Knowledge begins at the shadows (eikas) stage, progresses to the actual object (pistis) stage, then to broader study of a number of objects (diania) to finally one arrives at the essence or Form of the object (noesis). The third analogy, The Cave, shows how most men see knowledge which is a distorted dim reflection cast on a wall. One usually will need to be dragged out of this situation into the realm of Light, illumined by the Sun, which is a metaphor for the Form of the Good.

Plato’s anthropology must be considered as well. He believes that soul is the true essential part of man. “I am” my soul which is currently trapped in this body. The term for this view is dualism. The analogy of a pilot on a ship is useful in understanding Plato’s perspective. This understanding of the soul, leads him to believe that the soul can know in the Forms innately.

From considering Plato’s psychology, his analogies, and his anthropology his epistemology is one of man having innate ideas impressed on his mind from the Forms and that senses are useful only triggering recollection of these ideas. Knowledge is found in turning away from the senses. It is an interior way of knowing.

Aristotle’s psychology of the soul is different. Instead of a tri-part understanding, he divides the soul into two parts with each of these parts having two branches. The two main parts of the soul are the rational and irrational parts. The rational part of the soul branches into reason and appetite, while the irrational part divides into the appetite and vegetative-nutrition-growth. The soul then manifests itself in four ways- Reason, Motion, Sensation, and Nutrition/Growth.

The rational part having a role in the middle appetite section gives rise to his hylomorphic anthropological view of man. Unlike Plato’s dualism, Aristotle considers the person to be an embodied soul. Because of this bodied expression, the person comes to know things through the senses. His process of knowing is three-fold: 1. Sense perception, all lower animals have this, 2. Retained memory, experience, and 3. Recognition, nous, or wisdom. Aristotle does not believe in innate knowledge only innate potentials (capabilities) to know. Knowledge is found from the senses. It is an exterior way of knowing.

In conclusion, the differences in Plato and Aristotle’s epistemologies are as follows. Plato’s Soul has three parts versus Aristotle’s soul of four parts. Plato is a dualist whereas Aristotle is a hylomorphoricist. Plato’s soul is evidenced in only thinking while Aristotle sees the soul in thinking plus the bodily sensible operations of motion, sensation, and growth. Plato sees wisdom coming from within, with the senses used to recollect innately the ideas of the Forms. Aristotle sees the senses exteriorly providing the knowledge that the soul has. For him, there is no innate knowledge.

One comment

Pingback: Declaratio, Sovereign Pontiff is Benedict XVI, Anti-Pope Bergoglio, Dedication to Pete Episode 1 – Fides et Ratio

Share Your Thoughts Cancel reply

Discover more from fides et ratio.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics Essay

Introduction, plato versus aristotle: the purpose of individuals, plato versus aristotle: their political perspectives, works cited.

Plato was a great philosopher as well as a teacher whose most renowned student, Aristotle, holds differing views. Plato’s Republic endeavors to create an “ideal state” typified by the ruling of the Philosopher-Kings while Aristotle’s Politics sticks to reality, a regime of identifying the partly suitable assertions of democrats, oligarchs, and aristocracy. This essay explains the differing perspectives of Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Republic . Probably, a disparity that comes up is that Politics is entirely different in construction as compared to The Republic . Whereas Politics is held up very slackly by the theme, Republic is a merged text. Plato’s Republic, in an extremely organized way, depicts an ideal society with the use of the Socratic Method. On the other hand, Aristotle’s Politics merely embraces the voices of Aristotle, but the content is not systematized with a conclusion in mind. Therefore, argumentatively, Plato’s Republic is objective while Aristotle’s Politics is subjective.

As aforementioned, Plato’s “ideal state” is typified by the ruling of the Philosopher-Kings as it is anchored in four virtues, viz. “intelligence, bravery, moderation and fairness” (Plato 309). Intelligence causes the republic to be wise, bravery causes it to be brave, moderation signifies the perception that everyone distinguishes his or her task, while fairness signifies the concord that results where everybody is actively involved in accomplishing his or her task and does not interfere with that of different individuals. The final point is a significant one because his comprehension of the state is that it develops since it accomplishes particular functional requirements (Plato 261).

The evident requirements in this case are shelter, clothing, and food (that supports nourishment). Plato insists that, only the city can offer all of the requirements because every person in it has a particular responsibility, which he or she carries out. The relationship with one another, as Plato suggests, is the reason for which the republic is established. The city can then draw together the craftsmen, the farmers, the poor, and the rich in an equal measure (Plato 391). Plato’s “ideal state” operates similar to organisms whereby each performs its day-to-day task in a bid to excel. This aspect underscores why Plato holds that a unique class of Philosopher-Kings (guardians) is best suited to rule the “ideal state” (city).

Plato’s perception that each person has a dissimilar but important accountability in the “ideal state” informs his consideration of who should rule it. Since the majority of men are merely interested with outcomes and effects and are normally unfair, just a few are worthy enough to rule the “ideal state”. However, fairness and desirable quality alone are not sufficient. The Philosopher-Kings (who rule) have to be physically strong, cherish wisdom and understanding, and be unreceptive to outside occurrences (Plato 439). The Philosopher-Kings also exist by a detached set of regulations as they can possess no private possessions, reside in an encampment, and guard the city against interlopers. Plato as well turns off the partition amid the private and the public and he contends for common kids and wives for the guardians in a bid to create a society amongst the rulers of the city. In addition, women take part in works meant for men like defending the city and putting food on the table. Ultimately, the city seeks to maintain oneness as opposed to nurturing different talents, which are inherent in its dwellers.

On his part, Aristotle does not differ that the distinctiveness in ability is the causal factor of an ideal city, as he affirms that not only is a city constituted of many people, but also of people who vary in kind (Aristotle 276). Whereas Plato considers that by nature a number of people are more suitable than others are for particular jobs, Aristotle differs by affirming that any individual has the capacity to rule, on condition that he or she observes the law in addition to being well educated. In addition, even if individuals may be different from each other, every one has a responsibility in assisting to define the society. Specifically, the reason behind being a resident in a society is the capacity to rule as well as be ruled. The excellent regimes, as Aristotle claims, are the ones where residents have the capacity and yearning to follow their own preferences, which is achieved by offering the majority the capability to rule.

Furthermore, Aristotle considers that common kids and wives could in fact weaken the stability of the state. The idea of common property referred to as communism by Aristotle, in reality ruptures the harmony of the city. Instead of splitting the private and public sectors, Aristotle affirms that the partition is very important by posing a question as to what could occur if a person diminished a many-articulated harmony to an agreement to one rhythm (Aristotle 308).

The variation of the views of Plato and Aristotle concerning the nature of people and the city determines their political perspectives and the “most excellent” regime. In the case of Plato, the Philosopher-Kings are the only people that qualify to rule since they have exceptional abilities in addition to knowledge. Only the Philosopher-Kings are competent to rule due to their intelligence, bravery, moderation, and adherence to fairness. Plato equates Philosopher-Kings to physicians. When individuals are unwell, they go to people that can treat them, viz. physicians, for they are trained and qualified to handle such cases of illness.

Likewise, when people require governance, they should permit those who can govern to perform their task. Plato differentiates four kinds of government. In his view of timarchy, battle and the military take over and a win is the only outcome. For the case of oligarchies, wealth and the attainment of wealth propels the rulers. According to the third kind of regime, viz. democracy, there exists no control whatsoever and aspirations are recognized to be the same. Finally, in a dictatorship, the rulers obtain every authority for themselves and articulate to the public that which is in their best interest (Plato 307). In other words, the public’s needs are secondary to a dictator.

Aristotle cannot be misidentified for a liberal, although he however questions a number of the postulations underlying in Plato’s Republic . Most significantly, Aristotle’s Politics has more of a pluralist comprehension of government in view of the fact that Aristotle asserts that individuals having perfect education and compliance to the ruling are fit to rule. These individuals as well team up to rule in the masses (majority), something that frightens Plato and symbolizes mob rule. In accordance with Aristotle, several people and not a single person ought to rule for the reason that anybody can rule suitably when edified by the rules and many decrees jointly and in a better capacity when judged against one person ruling alone (Aristotle 110). Aristotle’s view of aristocracy (virtue) is comparable and rests in disagreement to Plato. Whereas Plato considers that the worthy are few and that virtue is innate, Aristotle believes that virtue as well as fairness can be educated to individuals. According to Aristotle, the city is in a number of approaches more comprehensive than the Plato’s. Finally, Aristotle differs with Plato in view of change. Aristotle affirms that laws at times have to be altered, and that art cannot be ideal always.

According to Plato, a strong state is vital to maintain order and defend the city, money is looked disapprovingly upon and the cause of much evil and family for the Philosopher-Kings is wiped out. Plato is concerned about multitude rule and doubtful of any thought that offers the ruling authority to common individuals. Aristotle differs on these concerns and is more prepared to provide common individuals with the capacity to rule. Aristotle is not as opposed to change as Plato, and eventually he believes that with the appropriate laws and education, the masses can nurture the capability to rule. Even if Plato and Aristotle were “ancient” authors, their rows and differences are still appropriate in modern political discourse. Were they existing nowadays, they could be shocked to discover that what they disagreed concerning state leadership still arouses sentiments in the contemporary times. Since Plato considers the search for knowledge and fairness to be everlasting, he might not be shocked if he were to rise from the depths of the earth.

Aristotle. Politics, Trans. Ernest Barker. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics, 2009. Print.

Plato. The Republic of Plato, Trans. Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics, 2008. Print.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 20). Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-platos-republic-versus-aristotles-politics/

"Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics." IvyPanda , 20 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-platos-republic-versus-aristotles-politics/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics'. 20 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics." May 20, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-platos-republic-versus-aristotles-politics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics." May 20, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-platos-republic-versus-aristotles-politics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Philosophy: Plato’s Republic Versus Aristotle’s Politics." May 20, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/philosophy-platos-republic-versus-aristotles-politics/.

Ancient Political Theory: Plato and Aristotle
Plato and Aristotle’s Views of Virtue in Respect to Education
Plato’s and Aristotle’s Concepts of Political Theory
"The Divinity School Address" by Ralph Waldo Emerson
Thomas Nagel' Philosophic Views on Love and Sex
"The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant
"On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense" by Friedrich Nietzsche
"The Consolations of Philosophy" by Allan de Botton

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Comparison of Plato’s Political Philosophy with Aristotle’s Political Philosophy

2018, Urban Studies and Public Administration

Related Papers

Journal of Business Theory and Practice

Leonidas Papakonstantinidis

Concepts such as freedom cannot be measured and give material measurable results. Freedom is not measured. It leaves its philosophical imprint on independent thought. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Note 1), it recedes only to leave room for political freedom The supposed absolute freedom based on the quantity of material goods and choices actually leads to the commitment of individualism. Because it is difficult to change this relationship between materialism and individualism, we focus on philosophical freedom through self-knowledge that will answer the triple question (1) what is best for me, (2) what is best for you, (3) what is best for community in which we negotiate a win-win-win reasoning for everyone who negotiates with another in the community Thus arises a win-win-win inner freedom with an immeasurable result, which at its limit is identified with the complete independence of the soul and the spirit.

Urban Studies and Public Administration

Francis Mukosa

Kwesi Atta Sakyi , M. Katebe

This research looks at the hypothetical state of no governments and no external trade, the autarky situation as well as the ideal utopian democratic state juxtaposed as Utopia versus Dystopia. This essay is motivated by the current world situation of global internet connectivity which transcends borders and defies government regulation. The essay focuses on examining what opportunities would be presented in a situation of no government and also what challenges and threats would exist in such an instance bordering on Dystopia. The paper comprises findings that have been drawn from analyzing the different opinions, facts and findings from researchers on the topic of public policy. It fundamentally addresses the question from an assumption that there were no governments and concludes by drawing on the importance of public policy and why this is essential in order to avoid anarchy that arises as a result of not having laws and regulations to control the behaviors of societies and individuals in those Hobbesian societies. The findings in the paper are that a state of no government presents itself as a state of confusion and that it descends into the extreme form of a totally unregulated free market capitalist approach for communities and societies. This, in the end, results in lawlessness that to an extent permits the emergence of anarchist states where the rich take advantage of their power and become more powerful than societies or states as exemplified by the MNCs. The purpose of government is to provide essential services and ensure that the rights of individuals are protected. Without the regulatory and protective umbrella of government, the concept of protection and extending the benefits of external trade become the preserve of rich individuals who may brutally exploit and assault the poor to the point of enslavement and exploitation.

Petros G Malakyan

This article addresses the traditional view of leader (ship) and follower (ship) as separate persons and processes in leadership research. Attempts have been made to depersonalize leadership and followership by taking leaders out of leadership and followers out of followership, which is to say that leaders and followers are myth and do not exist as separate identities. The traditional views of leaders and followers as static persons and functions as well as leadership and followership as separate processes have been challenged by the depersonalized or person-less concepts of leadship and followship. A shift of focus in research seems necessary from the leader or follower to the dynamic inter-relational functions of leading or following as well as from leader- or follower-centric leadership or followership to role-focused and interchangeable process of leadship and followship in organizations.

Moral Education: Panacea for a Free and Stable Nigerian Society

Saheed O L A N R E W A J U Jabaar

Societies are formed by humans in order to achieve stability by way of having protection from aggression, and engendering cooperation of others in overcoming individual weaknesses. Nigeria has witnessed some degree of social instability in recent years. This has manifested in insecurity of life and property, extreme poverty, youth unemployment, and mutual distrust in basic human relationships. The education sector can be implicated in the challenge of instability as it is the system which is saddled with the responsibility of human capital development. The education system seems to be lopsided towards intellectual development of learners as opposed to balanced (cognitive, affective and skill) development of individuals. This paper adopts method of philosophical analysis to survey relevant literatures and theoretical postulations on human freedom and social stability with a view of interrogating how extensive guarantee of freedom could be reconciled with realization of human development. The paper underscores the school system as a point of early social interaction, and a focal point in preparing individuals for participation in social life by way of inculcating in them the consciousness of their dependence on others in spite of their independence as free beings. It is advanced that education system needs to focus on producing balanced and cultured individuals who can rationally exercise their freedom. An integrative moral education model of teaching moral is proposed as innovative pedagogical skill which teachers can adopt to enhance learners' social consciousness.

Journal of Research in Philosophy and History

edeh peter daniel

The philosophy that deals with the theory of beauty and ugliness is called Aesthetics. It examines the creation, appreciation, evaluation, interpretation and critique of works of art. In the same vein African women’s live drama appreciates, creates, evaluates, criticizes, interprets and expresses her feelings with regards to the works of arts as it is viewed expressed in the live style of every woman. This paper identifies among others, crops of women, moderate and radical women as well as orthodox or traditional women who accept the traditional position of women but press for peaceful coexistence in spite of men and women distinction. It takes cognisance of the wind of modernity from the west as it affects the African woman. This paper is a critical examination of Aesthetics and the African women’s world view and in appreciation of other world views. While the paper identifies certain problems in women’s lives drama generally it concludes with possible suggestion as it lays much em...

Journal of Education, Teaching and Social Studies

akinjide aboluwodi

The development of character in young people is an obligation that requires the efforts of parents, teachers and the community in a society with a decline moral tone. The involvement in immoral acts by some youths and elders in the contemporary Nigerian society may be traced to inordinate ambition of these youths and elders to accumulate material wealth. The young people engage in what is generally referred to as yahoo and yahoo plus, and elders engage in corrupt acts. Yahoo describes the act of defrauding people through the cyber connection, whereas yahoo plus involves the use of rituals to make financial and material gains. The paper examined how young people could be educated to cultivate the virtues of self-control, contentment, caring for others and self-discipline. It drew inspirations from virtue ethical theories to ground moral virtues in character education, and discussed some intervention programmes that could strengthen character development in young people. It examined t...

Studies in Linguistics and Literature

Charalampos Magoulas

Communication, as a social activity existing in and comprising almost any human action, cannot take place but as a mediated performance, given that it consists in the triadic relation between transmitter, message and receiver. Its goal is always the transmission of a message with the highest possible coherence and, at the same time, its simultaneous comprehension with the less possible deterioration of its original meaning. A basic assumption is that a potential difficulty in everyday communication is due for the most part to the existence of one or more parasites, which could be detected either in external factors or in the message itself. The question is whether a parasite could live in the signifier of a word and thus determine or alter its signified during an act of communication. This paper aims at exploring Serres’ view on parasite and attempting to identify its existence and function within the signifier of words we use in everyday life. To that end the terms of “democracy” and “polis” will be used as examples of hosts of parasites.

Advances in Politics and Economics

Jesenko Tešan , Joan Davison

A history of empires and communism created a liminality in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). When leaders throughout the Soviet Bloc began to discredit communism, an opportunity opened for the leadership of B&H to unify the popular will and transition to democracy. Yet, the appropriate leadership, a master of ceremonies from van Gennep and Turner's perspectives, a philosopher from Plato's view was absent. Politicians instead repackaged themselves as nationalists and supported extremists and divisive actions, culminating in war. Subsequently, the mechanisms associated with the Dayton Peace Accords conceived to return B&H to normalcy instead made the divisive liminality a new normal as power sharing elites benefitted if they held to nationalist claims and ignored societal reintegration. This, study examines the reasoning and tactics of elites who rejected the mantle of good leadership and now abuse the spirit of the constitutional and institutional power sharing mechanisms to maintain the schizophrenic division and conflict. It also introduces the type of virtuous leader states needed for transition.

Jesenko Tešan

RELATED PAPERS

Savvas Mavridis

Market Fundamentalism and the Ethics of Democracy in Uganda

Kizito Michael George

Claver Boundja

*Mahfuza Zannat, **Zhang Longhai, ***Sanjida Forkan , Universe International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

Universe International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

Lidia Errante

Urban Studies and Public Administration, Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 21-68

Fanan Ujoh (Ph.D) , Fanan Ujoh

World Journal of Social Science Research

Alexander Rusero

Sunday K. HABILA, PhD

The Tale of Two 1001-Night Cities

arash salek

Summary of To(wards) the Concepts τὸ δίκαιον and ἡ δικαιοσύνη in the Practical Philosophy of Aristotle

Dimka Gocheva

European Journal of Developmental Psychology

Gerhard Minnameier

Abdullah Gençal

Education, Society and Human Studies

Milan Jaros

Enes Eryılmaz

Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Veronica Pozneacova

The World Congress of Philosophy: The Philosophy of Aristotle (Vol. 3)

Abhishek Psc

Samuel Ngale

Catherine Rowett

Alexander Edwards

Muhaiminul islam , Abdulla - Al Kafy , Dulal Sarker

Laura Casas

Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy XVI

Francisco L. Lisi

Journal of Research in Philosophy and History, Vol.1, No.2

Wilfred Lajul

PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNAL OF CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE (PJCV) - CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE IN PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY

Corentin Voisin

Balot/A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought

Giulia Sissa

michael fantus

Communication, Society and Media

Cristian Mendoza

John R Wallach

Sean Hannan

Studies in English Language Teaching

Rahman Sahragard

Anders Burman , Synne Myrebøe

Xavier Márquez

Plato and Aristotle comparison ESSAY PLAN - OCR Religious Studies A Level NEW SPEC

Subject: Philosophy and ethics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

6 October 2023

Share through email
Share through twitter
Share through linkedin
Share through facebook
Share through pinterest

An extremely detailed essay plan comparing Plato and Aristotle, with a great structure that entwines information and analysis together. Even if your essay question is different, this will be really useful for taking evaluative points for this topic!

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

christian_stocker13579

good for explaining the comparison between the 2 theories, but doesn't relate to the question well enough to create a sufficient essay on the question: Buy the plan if you need a general comparison. Do not buy if you need to answer the question given

Eviefbuller

Thanks for response! In my opinion that’s how I intend the plan to be - flexible enough to relate to any question, you just need to make your own links within it. :)

Empty reply does not make any sense for the end user

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

IMAGES

Plato and Aristotle: a Comparison
Plato vs Aristotle Essay Example
Comparison of Aristotle's and Plato's Perspectives on Happiness Free
Plato And Aristotle: A Comparison Compare And Contrast Essay Example
Ultimate Reality: Plato vs Aristotle Free Essay Example
The Plato vs Aristotle

VIDEO

Plato VS Aristotle। Two Greatest Philosophers। #youtubeshorts
Aristotle and Plato
Plato VS Aristotle
Plato vs. Aristotle
plato and Aristotle comparative study💯 with fun 🤣🤣🤣 #shorts #exam #epathshala
#Aristotle//#Plato #Books

COMMENTS

Plato and Aristotle: How Do They Differ?
Art Media—Print Collector/Hulton Fine Art Collection/Getty Images. Plato (c. 428-c. 348 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) are generally regarded as the two greatest figures of Western philosophy. For some 20 years Aristotle was Plato's student and colleague at the Academy in Athens, an institution for philosophical, scientific, and mathematical research and teaching founded by Plato in ...
Compare and Contrast: Plato and Aristotle Essay
Differences. A very conspicuous difference between Aristotle and Plato is their approach to heir mentors teachings. Plato continued with the teachings of his mentor Socrates and advanced his philosophy. On the other hand, Aristotle chose to go a different path and critic his mentor's philosophy.
Aristotle vs Plato
Influence of Aristotle vs. Plato. Plato influenced Aristotle, just as Socrates influenced Plato. But each man's influence moved in different areas after their deaths. Plato became the primary Greek philosopher based on his ties to Socrates and Aristotle and the presence of his works, which were used until his academy closed in 529 A.D.; his works were then copied throughout Europe.
Comparing the Similarities and Differences Between Plato and Aristotle
Comparing the Similarities and Differences Between Plato and Aristotle. Plato (c.428 - 347 BC) and Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) are two of the most influential philosophers in history. Socrates was also seen as a great philosopher and, as his pupil, Plato was greatly influenced by his teachings. Plato then became the teacher of Aristotle who ...
Aristotle vs. Plato
Plato argued that reality is a reflection of a higher, spiritual truth, a higher dimension of ideal forms that we can attempt to understand only through philosophical contemplation. Aristotle rejected this argument. Aristotle instead argued that reality existed in the material world itself.
Plato & Aristotle: ancient philosophical influences
Aristotle thought that Plato's theory of forms was an unnecessary hypothesis, because it has no explanatory power regarding our experience. Plato's forms are unchanging, but therefore cannot explain the change we experience in the world. Aristotle concluded that the forms are "nonsense, and even if they do exist, they are wholly ...
Plato and Aristotle on Literature Compare & Contrast Essay
Plato and Aristotle differ on their approach to the role of literature in the society. According to the Leitch and McGowan, "both men approach the critique from different perspectives, Plato from an idealistic deductive view point depicted in the dialogue format, and Aristotle from realistic, practical and inductive viewpoint in essay format ...
The Views Of Plato And Aristotle On What Is A 'Good Life': [Essay
Plato believed that those with knowledge should rule. Under the "rulers" are "protectors" and "producers". Aristotle believed that everyone had their place. An example of this can be seen in management of a business. At the top we have the founder/CEO. Next we have the financial board.
Plato vs. Aristotle: Political Philosophy Compare and Contrast Essay
Plato and Aristotle also agree that the universe originated from a more powerful and intelligent entity than the normal human being. Though they both have a different opinion on the function of the entity, they acknowledge its existence. Plato and Aristotle are descendants of the intellectual prism housed by Socrates.
Critically compare Plato's philosophical approach with that of
Plato and Aristotle are usually understood to have completely contrasting philosophical approaches. Although Plato was Aristotle's teacher at the Academy in Athens, Aristotle rejected Plato's focus on metaphysics and reason, choosing instead to explore the limits of Physics and observation. Clearly, Aristotle's philosophical approach has ...
Identity and Difference: Plato and Aristotle on Democracy
Plato's thought represents an integral dimension of Modern Europe's classical heritage. His complex and changing notions of identity and difference, his views of the connection between body and soul, passion and reason, and his own varying assessment of the theory of Forms, as refracted through Aristotle's critique of all these concepts ...
Plato and Aristotle: A Comparison of Epistemologies
In this essay, I will compare the epistemologies of Plato and Aristotle. To understand Plato's epistemology, one first must understand his psychology of the human person. Psychology, the study of the mental states or processes, of the person for Plato is a tri-part division of reason, passion and appetite.
Plato's Idealism & Aristotle's Realism: An Introduction
To Plato, as an idealist, he believed that if any kinds of reality were to exist whatsoever, it would be in a form of ideas inside the mind, and the objects of thought are the true reality. He ...
Plato and Aristotle: a Comparison
Views. 1719. Comparing the political theories of any 2 fantastic theorists is an intricate job. Plato and Aristotle are two such theorists who had concepts of how to improve existing societies throughout their specific lifetimes. While both Plato and Aristotle were fantastic thinkers, maybe it is essential initially to analyze the ideas of each ...
Aristotle vs. Plato Essay
For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the. Free Essay: Aristotle vs. Plato Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato's definition of virtue ...
Plato vs Aristotle Essay
Plato vs Aristotle Essay. Better Essays. 1835 Words; 8 Pages; Open Document. In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but ...
Philosophy: Plato's Republic Versus Aristotle's Politics Essay
This essay explains the differing perspectives of Aristotle's Politics and Plato's Republic. Probably, a disparity that comes up is that Politics is entirely different in construction as compared to The Republic. Whereas Politics is held up very slackly by the theme, Republic is a merged text. Plato's Republic, in an extremely organized ...
(PDF) Comparison of Plato's Political Philosophy with Aristotle's
The main differences are: Plato and Aristotle have different methodologies of exploring the problems of political philosophy; Plato and Aristotle have different categories of issues from the political philosophy they take for analysis; Plato and Aristotle have different opinions about the reasons of state creation and theses on these reasons ...
Plato Vs Aristotle Essay
Plato Vs Aristotle Essay. Good Essays. 956 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. In Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics, the topic of the ideal form of government is addressed at several points. Among the forms of government discussed is democracy, which Plato and Aristotle critique using their own objective reasoning.
Plato and Aristotle Essay
This essay will be examining the ethics of Plato (428-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) to analyse, justify and compare the major concepts of the two philosophers therein. I will argue that Aristotle's solution to the problem of the 'good life' is a better answer than Plato. It will summarise the fundamental concepts of Plato's and ...
Plato and Aristotle's Meaning of the Good Life
He inferred that to be truly virtuous; one must practice virtue. So, while Plato believed that virtue was sufficient for happiness, Aristotle believed that virtue is necessary for achieving a good life. One can compare and contrast many different ideas regarding Plato and Aristotle.
Essay about Aristotle vs Plato
Decent Essays. 1665 Words. 7 Pages. Open Document. 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 ...
Plato and Aristotle comparison ESSAY PLAN
An extremely detailed essay plan comparing Plato and Aristotle, with a great structure that entwines information and analysis together. Even if your essay question is different, this will be really useful for taking evaluative points for this topic!