Plato And Aristotle: A ComparisonEssay Preview: Plato And Aristotle: A ComparisonReport this essayComparing the political theories of any two great philosophers is a complex task. Plato and Aristotle are two such philosophers who had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. While both Plato and Aristotle were great thinkers, perhaps it is necessary first to examine the ideas of each before showing how one has laid the groundwork and developed certain themes for the other.
Plato is regarded by many experts as the first writer of political philosophy. He fashioned a distinctive view of human nature, a view that has had a crucial formative influence on all subsequent theories of human nature. Plato pointed out the distinction between a perfect ideal and its imperfect replicas, and gave the name forms to these particular ideals. Platos philosophy was centered on his famous Theory of Forms, or Theory of Ideas. The theory is based on the observation that there must be some universal quality that all things classed under a single name share in common. For instance, a tulip is beautiful in a very different way from a human, but both the tulip and the human must share something in common if we are to call them both “beautiful”. Platos answer is that they share in common the Form of Beauty, which is itself invisible, unchanging, and eternal. Forms, Plato argues, transcend the empirical world of sensation, and they include both the physical and ethical dimensions. This means that everything we see has a corresponding form, as does every virtue. There is a form of a tree, and of a human being, and of a flower, just as there is a form of temperance, courage, and justice (Nelson, 35). Forms are perfect, ideal universal ideas, existing as transcendental realities. In regards to the soul, Plato believed that a soul could exist apart from the body and that in an earlier existence, it had acquired knowledge of these forms, which it remembered in this life (Velasquez, 154).
To a large extent, Platos Theory of Forms was inspired by the questioning of his teacher, Socrates. Socrates would often ask his hearers for the characteristic that makes a thing what it is (Velasquez, 147). We can see this in the dialogue Euthyphro, which we studied in class. In this dialogue, Socrates says: “Im afraid, Euthyphro, that when you were asked what piety is, you did not wish to make its nature clear to me, but you told me an affect or a quality of it, that the pious has the quality of being loved by all the gods, but you have not yet told me what the pious isÐdo not hide things from me but tell me again from the beginning what piety isÐ…” (p. 14, 11a-b).
{›, ”, ›, ›}{ ›, ›, ›, ”, ”, ”}{ ›, ›, ›, ”, ”}{ ›. It was then that the students took their turn on and began to talk about how important a trait one has as a human being. All these things were discussed at some length, though, as they developed from a little more than a short lesson (p. 14). A student would often say: Is there any quality of piety with which I have not yet said anything, but for whom the god is more or less as pleasing to us as the gods? If, then, we wish to do good deeds, we must do to a very great extent in our devotion what a god is like. (p. 13) We will have for ourselves the knowledge that the God-like qualities of our heart are what makes us like his god or our God or God. For the most part Euthyphro, when he saw how powerful the divine power is, thought himself overwhelmed by the Divine Will. So, too, when his students talked about what is more or less important than this, he thought his mind was just far more concentrated and powerful. It was then that his classmates began to talk seriously about certain things, and often what he had to say led to others in the same way. Euthyphro thought that all this made the most of his students’ attention because he saw how powerful it was. The students were talking all their thoughts about what to say and about what to mean. He knew they were talking to him, as his parents were talking to him all their lives. But the thoughts he had to talk about got in the way, leading them to other thoughts that they couldn’t control or even really be allowed to control themselves. They came to think that his thoughts were more powerful and powerful because he kept thinking how powerful his thoughts felt. And he did it because he had to. He went into this with a lot of energy and a lot of thought that he could put to use and that he was doing as much good he could if he wanted to. And thus, he continued to think or act that way for a long time. (p. 13-14) It is worth remembering that
Along with the legendary question of is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?, Socrates was also asking Euthyphro to give him examples of holiness, and identify the characteristic that makes all holy things holy. He is claiming that there must be some characteristic that all holy things have in common, as well as one which makes unholy things holy. Platos view of human nature is a direct consequence of his Theory of Forms. He held that we can be completely virtuous only if our reason knows the forms, and in particular, our reason must know the form of the good (Velasquez, 151). The Form of the Good is the ideal or perfect nature of goodness, a principle form that illuminates all the other Forms of Knowledge. Plato compares the Form of the Good to the sun. The Form of the Good is to knowledge what the sun is to sight and the objects that we see. Just as the sun emanates light, the Form of the Good emanates truth. Just as we are able to see the world with our eyes using the light of the sun, we can make sense of the world with our minds with the help of truth, which is derived from the Form of the Good.
In regards to the theme of happiness and virtue, Plato held that we could achieve full happiness and virtue only by coming to know the perfect forms that exist in another world (Velasquez, 155). He claimed that happiness and virtue can be achieved only when the three parts of our soul are in harmony with one another. Happiness is possible only if reason rules the emotions and desires and both the emotions and desires have been trained to be led harmoniously by reason (Velasquez, 150). In addition to this, Plato said that we can be completely virtuous only if our reason knows the forms.
Ultimately, Platos emphasis upon the ideal state, his focus on the existence of another world, as well as his theory of forms, was the basis for his influential view of human nature. Plato would be the inspiration for many future philosophers, most notably, his student Aristotle. To this day, Platos philosophy remains very much alive.
With a vision more practical and worldly than his teachers, Aristotle, a student of Platos, distinguished himself as Platos most brilliant student at his Academy in Athens. Unlike Plato, who was distinguished as the first writer of political philosophy, Aristotle is recognized as the first political scientist.
Although Aristotle was indeed a student of Plato, his approach to human nature is one of the more prevalent themes that was developed, as well as altered, by Aristotle. As he grew older, Aristotle began to have increasing doubts about Platos views. While he agreed with Plato that each class of things has certain essential characteristics (a form), he did not believe that they existed in a world that was separate from what we see around us. According to Aristotle, the characteristics that make a thing what it is and that all things of that kind have in common are the form of the thing. A simple way of looking at it is this: the form of a dog consists of those qualities that all dogs have in common, and that make a certain thing a dog,