Question 1

Comparative analysis of Plato and Aristotle

How Plato and Aristotle view reality

Plato and Aristotle are without any doubt the most significant philosophers the world has ever witnessed. Both philosophers came up with unique and distinctive theories around the Greek city-states. Most people claim that Plato and Aristotle are the exact opposite of each other, it is not an absolute truth. Individuals who have taken their time to study the works of both philosophers and the reasons as to why they are compared to each other, and the importance of examining the two legends; such people cannot wholly claim that they are extreme opposites. Their ideologies are very well thought of and contain a load of information that assists people to study other concepts of life, therefore, comparing them gives people an advantage to identify the loopholes made while they were creating ideas or the reasons behind their thoughts. Comparing such great minds gives an opportunity to come up with new ways and perspectives of doing things. Therefore it is not just entirely about comparing the great minds but coming up with new ideas as well (Grube, 1981).

However, it was noted that Aristotle never let a day pass without criticizing Plato. It all commenced when Plato met his death and his nephew, Speusippus became the head of Plato's Academy. Aristotle thought that he was better than Plato's nephew and felt that he deserved the role. He was angered and left the academy full of hatred and resentment. He has criticized his former master's concepts since the day he went out of the institution (Grube, 1981).

Plato conceived that there existed a perfect world than the one human inhabit. The present world is full of veil and inequality, imperfection and impurities replicated from the ideal world beyond human reach. Plato says that a relationship exists between the realms of form and the present world occupied by man .The association brought about the organization and a coordinated way of life (Grube, 1981).

Some of the similarities that can be seen between Aristotle and Plato, is their belief in the concept of Polis. Self-sufficiency and independent city-state. They believed that the role of a city was improving morality among people and enhance ethical development. In simple terms, the town had a duty of bringing up its citizens to become more responsible individuals within the society. They had a common ground on cities and claimed that for a town to be more sufficient and sustainable, it should be small enough to cater to the needs of the people who live or abide in it. These sufficient cities are some of the general similarities spotted among the two philosophers who shaped the world, and many scholars around the globe still study their opinion (Grube, 1981).

Aristotle differed with Plato's opinion on reality. He argued that it was impossible to have the know-how of the type of interactions or activities occurring between the two forms. If the real also known as the ideal forms are eternal, pure and never changing, then relating them to the material objects or structure on the physical earth with all its imperfection is not possible. Participating or imitating the connection between the real and not real or imaginary, which according to Plato existed is the incorrect way of thinking as there is no evidence to establish the link. Even if the connection is real, it fails to explain every form in the physical or material world. Plato does not describe the manner in which the higher forms were managed or controlled and if it was possible for forms to control things (Grube, 1981).

Aristotle made a lot of assumptions on the concept of forms. He intimately combined the theory with his views and faith. Humans are capable of creating biological or scientific knowledge and wisdom out of primary substances such as plants and animals but only when they acquire the understanding of the ‘causes.' Atia, a Greek word translates directly to causes or can be known as the reason behind a certain phenomenon. This means that knowledge is meaningful and useful only when there is certainty   why ‘something' exists   and its purpose, fundamental science procedures .Thus, if humans have two legs because they are biped, then having legs can explain the form of humanness in man .Therefore knowledge of a form or essence gives the reason why things appear as they usually do. In this manner Aristotle theory on expertise was connected with metaphysics or scientific method (Grube, 1981).

Plato suggested once humans acknowledge the world that exist beyond their own, they will gain more power and understanding about forms that exist in that world. He was not specific enough to let people know if this was supposed to occur during the lifespan of a human or after his death. Aristotle on the other side believed that everything was on earth and scientific procedures would be used to find the purpose behind everything on earth. In short, Plato implies merely that what moves on earth in its physical form is an Imitation of an actual phenomena only difference is the imperfections it exhibits (Grube, 1981).

 

On the other side Aristotle, claimed that the natural earth is real and physical .Aristotle taught biology and geography as a teacher. This occupation gave him understanding he needed to study universe and living organisms keenly. Aristotle found that the earth is made up of a lot of physical forms though some were neither perfect nor pure. He further elaborated that human senses could recognize every material forms on earth. Aristotle and other philosophers did not explain how the invisible world affects life forms and other things on earth. No matter how Plato evaluated life, it does not solve the human world exhaustively, the evolution it underwent and the organization of phenomena (Grube, 1981).

 Augustine explained that unassisted human logic to find truth, positivity or joy is not possible. He claimed that one needs god to achieve goodness or truth. This is the exact opposite of Plato's thoughts. According to Plato, very few people can acquire knowledge and virtue. According to Augustine if one believed that God could change the state of human beings through his power and mercies then he would (Grube, 1981).

 

Question 2

 The three critics presented by Locke, Berkley and Hume on the existence of substance

Based on Berkeley, Locke's opinion on the material can only be reached when the ideology of material substance includes a contradiction. Secondly, content substances are utterly unknowable. Thirdly, the doctrine of such substances is vacuous. Berkeley bases his criticism on the assumption that individuals can perceive their ideas and every sensible quality are solely ideas (Grube, 1981).

 

Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz

Descartes suggested that only two types of substance: material bodies, which are known by their extent and mental content, which in turn explained by thoughts. In this context, thinking can be equated to consciousness. Descartes just like Aristotle was never an atomist. That is, he did not believe in a void within the bodies instead claimed that there is substance between the frame (Grube, 1981).

On Spinoza's side, there is an existence of only one substance illustrated through a version of the ontological argument. Ontological argument is an idea   of existing as both god and nature.

According to Leibniz God can do what he wants, not only in the actual world where his power is seen but in another area of the world (Grube, 1981).

According to Hume, the belief in substance is as an outcome of a mistake or illusion. When a particular object is followed from its inception to its end, the only thing that can be noticed or identified is succession. When the situation and thought process of the object is carefully analyzed, diversity comes out. An individual's imagination is then allowed to think that the process of succession and diversity goes on after the purpose does no longer exist hence the concept of substance (Grube, 1981).

Locke and Hume tend to believe that ideas   spring from   either sensation or reasoning also known as reflection of an individual's mind. Locke points out to the existence of particular things on earth. Not generals or abstracts hence there cannot be an existence of an item on earth from which an abstract ideology can be concluded based on senses alone. Thus abstract ideas, if any must emerge from the reflection. Ideas are created from general abstracts by dividing a concept from qualities such as time and place (Grube, 1981).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Grube, G.M.A. (1981).Free Dialogues. Hackett Publishing Company Inc.PDF.