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 concepts. 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 p1, p 41 & 45).
Plato was gained his knowledge from Socrates at a school in Athens .At the institution he had accessed knowledge from ancient geek scholars. This insight helped him gain ideas on philosophical concepts. Plato analyses mystery of nature and reality through the eyes of Socrates. When Socrates was a young man he thought that natural science was responsible for everything that occurred on earth. He then realizes that he has no ability to investigate beyond the physical tangible nature of the earth. ‘As I investigated how these things perish and what happens to things in the sky and earth, finally I became convinced that I had no natural aptitude at all for that kind of investigation’(Grube, 1981 p 1).
Plato conceived one can only do well if he has the knowledge of good. If one has the knowledge of good and understand how it works, they can have the ability to become more ethical in the society. Plato says that a relationship exists between the good and the bad in the present world occupied by man .The association brought about the organization and a coordinated way of life. This is exemplified by the passage, ‘I am far, by Zeus form believing that I know the cause of those things’ (Grube, 1981).
Plato makes comparisons between a short man and a tall one, a horse and a smaller horse. When a large man stands beside a short man, he is a head taller than the short man .A tall horse can be taller than another horse. Ten is a larger number than eight. Although the comparisons are obvious, the underlying causes behind the differences is a wonder to Plato. He also cannot differentiate which entity increases when it is added to another entity. He is not convinced that he has the knowledge to explain most of the obvious phenomena. He also claims that the mind is behind everything and gives purpose to each and everything on earth. (Grube, 1981 p 24).
Some of the similarities that can be seen between Aristotle and Plato, is their belief in the concept of human ability. Self-sufficiency and independent men and women. They believed that the role of a humanity was improving morality among other people and enhance ethical development. In simple terms, the humanity had a duty of bringing up its generations to become more responsible individuals within the society. They also had a common ground on reality and claimed that for the world to be more sufficient and sustainable, it should be small enough to cater to the needs of the people who live or abide in their reality. Belief in humanity 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 and the idea of good. He argued that it was reality was the things seen by humans and there is no any other dimension on earth that could be termed as reality, ‘For everything that changes is something and is changed by something” (p52). 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 (p 52). 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. This is demonstrated by the story of the cave where prisoners observe shadows for the first time and mistake it for reality (Grube, 1981 p 40).
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 ‘There are three kinds of substance one that is sensible the alter is recognized by men and includes plants and animals’(p 51) 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. He claims that the real world can be viewed as viewed in terms of perishable (Grube, 1981 p 51).
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 p36).
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 p 48).
Aristotle was more practical than his predecessor, Plato .The name assigned to an object should predict its overall character. For example, animal can be used to describe humans and other organisms in general (Grube, 1981 p 45).He claimed that a name and the description of the object should also depict the meaning. On the other hand, things within an object cannot dictate the overall meaning of the object. A definition cannot be predicated but this does not imply that their names cannot be used. For example, white within a certain object can be predicated based on the object it presents but in terms of the definition, cannot rely on the object it represents. Therefore everything is predicated or classified according to the object they present. However this does not apply to primary substances. For example animal is predicates man and consequently predicates an individual man.Primary substances are known as primary because they make up everything else. (Grube, 1981 p34).
A sensible substance can be altered according to Aristotle. If change is as a result of conflicting or intermediate and not entirely as an outcome of opposite, there must be an underlying factor which is responsible for the antagonistic change (Grube, 1981 p41).
References
Grube, G.M.A. (1981).Free Dialogues. Hackett Publishing Company Inc.PDF.
