Plato and Aristotle are two of the most influential
philosophers in history. Plato became the
teacher of Aristotle who, although a long-term
pupil, was able to find many faults in Plato’s
theories and in fact became a great critic
of his teacher. Despite his criticisms though,
Aristotle was influenced by Plato, making
their works, which target the same aspects
of philosophy, easily comparable.
Both Plato and Aristotle based their theories
on four widely accepted beliefs:
Knowledge must be of what is real
The world experienced via the senses is what
is real
Knowledge must be of what is fixed and unchanging
The world experienced via the senses is not
fixed and unchanging
These points led to a sceptic point of view
which is that knowledge might not be possible
both Plato and Aristotle wished to target
Sceptics as both agreed knowledge is possible.
Each philosopher chose a point of these four
beliefs to disregard and prove to be unnecessary.
Plato chose to reject the claim that the world
experienced through the senses is what is
real so he had to had to give an account of
where knowledge could be found
while Aristotle rejected the claim that knowledge
must be of what is fixed and unchanging so
he had to account for how to have knowledge
of that which is undergoing change.
This led the philosophers to overwhelming
different thoughts
Plato and Aristotle both used their definitions
of "form" to overcome their relative problems
when it came to knowledge.
Form for both philosophers was ability to
classify all things: chairs are chairs because
they reflect the form of a chair. However,
their precise definitions of form did differ.
Plato claimed that Particulars (objects) are
only crude representations of their Form.
This form is perfect and objects that can
be described as having this trait are imperfect
representations of the perfect form.
For example, a Beauty Particular such as Helen
of Troy is physical and accessible to the
senses. Her beauty is also only temporary
and relative to the observer, because ageing
and individual opinions alter how her beauty
is observed. Her beauty being combined with
non-beautiful parts, like her organs and non-beautiful
perspectives, mean that she cannot contain
the permanent Form of Beauty within herself.
Rather, Plato claimed that the Form of Beauty
is inaccessible to the senses and is not physical,
existing outside of time and space, and so
can only be understood through reason. The
Form of Beauty (being pure beauty) also differs
from the Beauty Particular as it is eternally
and irrefutably beautiful no matter who experiences
it and at what time.
Aristotle refuted Plato’s definition, believing
it to be unclear and illogical in claiming
that a chair can be understood to be a chair
due to its relationship with a form existing
outside of time and space. Instead, Aristotle’s
method of defining an object's form was through
the object's purpose, which it has been given
by the designer. So, a chair is a chair because
it has been designed to have the function
of a chair. That of which the chair is made
could have been given a different form if
it had been arranged differently. This way,
the form of an object exists within the object
and all similarly designed and purposed objects,
so it is unnecessary to disengage from this
world in order to understand a form as it
can be observed and understood on earth.
This also enables one to have knowledge of
an object whilst it undergoes change, as its
change is contained within its purpose. For
example, an acorn has within its form the
potential to become an oak tree if not interfered
with. The change which it is to undergo is
contained within the knowledge of it’s form.
This became the basis of Aristotle’s teleology
(study and explanation of functions). Aristotle
proposed that "nature does nothing in vain,"
as everything has a purpose given to it, perhaps
by a God. With this, Aristotle looks not only
at human artifacts, but also nature: eyes
have different structures and methods of operation
between species, yet they all share the form
of an eye, as they all exist for the purpose
of seeing.
Even though both philosophers use form to
understand objects, only Plato believes it
is required to gain knowledge. Plato also
thinks it essential to disengage from this
world to discover an object's form, whereas
Aristotle believes we need only study the
objects and discover its function.
Plato’s allegory of the cave is the key
to understanding his view of the human condition.
In this allegory, the human condition is likened
to being trapped in a cave facing the back
wall, only able to see shadows and unaware
that there is anything else in the world.
The world beyond though contains the truth
of reality and acts as a higher plane which
must be accessed in order to gain knowledge.
One person in the cave is set free and forced
to climb a steep hill representing the struggle
and effort it takes to gain knowledge and
learn as a philosopher would. The struggle
is also portrayed as a worthwhile act, as
the person freed now knows reality and not
merely the shadow of it. The people remaining
in the cave represent the ignorant, uneducated
majority of society and these people, when
the philosophically enlightened person returns,
are unwilling to believe him and would rather
cast him away than accept his truth. Plato
was a transcendentalist, meaning he believed
that to understand truth one must transcend
beyond this world to a higher reality where
true concepts exist. In this reality beyond
the senses, the knowledge found is unchanging.
This makes it necessary to use asceticism
to find the truth. By doing this, Plato is
able to ignore the sensory distraction of
the body in which he is trapped, while also
minimising the distractions of the appetites
of the body such as food and sex. Plato uses
mathematics as the paradigm of knowledge,
as its truth exists beyond sensory perception.
Aristotle does not agree with this idea of
the human condition, and uses biology as the
paradigm for knowledge. This encompasses his
view that knowledge need not be of an unchanging
nature, but can be gained by observing the
world around us. Aristotle becomes the leading
forefather of the naturalist thought in philosophy,
which studies natural occurrences in the world
and nature in order to gain knowledge. He
did not see the human condition as a trap
distracting the mind from truth, instead Aristotle
believed we could use the body as a tool to
aid us in learning. His view of everything
having a purpose would suggest that the human
body itself has a purpose, which allows it
to accommodate what humans should be able
to have knowledge of. Use of his natural senses
were all Aristotle required in order to learn.
The differences between Plato and Aristotle’s
theories outweigh the similarities. Both have
ultimately left large gaps in their theories,
which leave them open to criticism. However,
their theories led to two of the greatest
philosophical views, transcendentalism and
naturalism, which has enabled future philosophers
to build upon their original views and revise
them to accommodate new information and discoveries.
Both philosophers, despite their differences
are the foundation of modern western philosophy
today.
