Philosophies of Plato and Aristotle - Essay Example

and Section Number Submitted Comparing and Contrasting Plato’s and Aristotle’ Philosophies: The Road to Knowledge Introduction This paper aims to examine Plato’s and Aristotle’s views on the philosophy of the mind—specifically, what the terms ’form’ and ’substance’ mean to each of them and how these are acccessed by humans. As such, I wish to divide this paper into three parts. The first part will provide a brief summary of Plato’s and Aristotle’s teachings on three interrelated subjects: (1) their perspectives on external reality; (2) their understanding on the nature of human mind; and (3) their definition of ’form and substance’ as highlighted in essence. The second part, on the other hand, will compare some important concepts that have been forwarded by each of them in order to underscore some important lessons. The last part will conclude this paper by stating the relevance of each of their views in the subsequent studies on the philosophy of the mind—how their analyses guided various schools of thought pertaining to metaphysica and the mind-body problem (philosophies of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, and Martin Heiddeger). A. Overview of Plato’s and Aristotle’s Teachings To Plato, the physical world is nothing but an immitation of a perfect world, as stated clearly in the article entitled "Plato Overview" (Clark 1). Physical objects are construed as beings lacking the state of perfection. In this regard, the humans’ acquisition of sensible experiences gives them what Plato called ’opinions or beliefs’ (Clark 2). Such position, as reinforced in an academic paper entitled "Temporal Platonic Metaphysics," is based on the assumption that: (1) physical objects can only be regarded as imperfect versions of their perfect counterparts and (2) humans’ senses can only grasp these imperfect characteristics of physical objects (Mikovic 1). Following this reasoning and connecting this to his position on the nature of the human mind, Plato then recognized the need to transcend physicality as he regarded humans as more spiritual than physical. In Plato’s renowned metaphor, humans are souls trapped in physical bodies. Such conception of the state of ’being trapped’ is both revolutionary and developmental—revolutionary because it introduced the concept of non-materiality as another facet of humanity, and developmental because it highlighted the proper way through which the spiritual or ideal state of objects could be grasped. While humans gain sensible experiences through the physical contact with physical objects (as mediated by the five senses), such occurrence is made possible by the author and governor of the visible world of appearances called the Sun. On the other hand, humans are able to grasp the ideal forms of physical objects through dialectic reasoning as guided by the author and governor of the intelligible world called the Good. Formally defined, dialectic reasoning is the process of dialogic questioning-and-answering by which premises are examined and traced to the first principles on which they are based. What this process provides humans is the apprehension of the absolute truth, or its substance. Thus, Plato believed that substance is that which defines the ’is-ness’ of a thing—simple yet concise understanding of what a thing is and what it is for. Summarizing Plato’s teachings, it can be said that materiality does not render the absolute truth about beings, for it is merely an imitation of the ideal form. The supremacy of form in Plato’s perspective has underscored the need to practice dialectic reasoning in order to arrive at the primary objective of thinking, that is, the grasping of the being’s absolute truth (what ultimately is the being about and what it is for). Aristotle, in response to Plato’s teachings on physicality as mere immitation of perfect and ideal states of beings, believed it is possible to attain the absolute truth through the contact with physical objects. In this regard, the key to understanding the being’s substance starts with the appreciation of its physical state—a direct opposition to Plato’s mindset that regarded physicality as devoid of any intelligible data. Thus, to Aristotle, the grasping of the absolute truth lies in the realm of metaphysics. To begin, an online material entitled "Aristotle’s Metaphyics" posited that the Greek philosopher differentiated metaphysics from all the other branches of science by being that which examines beings as being, or ’being qua being’ (Cohen ”Aristotle’s Metaphysics” 1). Comparing metaphysics with physics, the former analyzes beings as they are by looking at the first principle of their being; while the latter studies beings with respect to certain condition or time. For example, while physics may be concerned with understanding the key factors that affect the speed of a triathlete, metaphysics is interested more on what makes a triathlete a triathlete. Such differences in viewpoints had led Aristotle in positing that metaphysics is indeed the queen of all sciences for it allows one to understand essences. The mind allows humans to grasp two types of knowledge about the physical being—first, its substance/matter and second, its form. And Aristotle agreed with Plato that is indeed through dialectic reasoning that one arrives at the understanding of the absolute truth—that is, through the questioning of the root causes of beings. If the absolute truths about objects are found in their physical states, how exactly should humans study them? Such question is significant as it paves the way for the examination of the primary definition of essence in light of specific essences. For example, responding to the question ”what makes a human human?” entails a quest to find the principal factor that defines humanity. In this regard, Aristotle thought that beings are composed of both matter and form. And so, if metaphysics is concerned with the understanding of the absolute truths about beings, how should one analyze beings given that they are both composed of matter and form? As stated in another online document entitled "Aristotle on Substance, Matter, and Form," Aristotle thought that it is not matter nor form that defines the being’s absolute truth, but a combination of both (Cohen, ”Aristotle on Substance, Matter, and Form” 3). Aristotle arrived at this conclusion by, firstly, claiming that matter provide the absolute truth about a being because of its separability and individuality. For example, to say that the essence of a tree is its leaves, roots, or trunk is logically erroneous because taking out any of these parts does not make it the tree ’un-tree’. Thus, the absolute truth about an object does not constitute materiality. Having developed this mindset, Aristotle went on to saying that the being’s form must provide the absolute truth about an object. Defining the term more precisely, form pertains to the overall ’state’ of beings (for the lack of a better term). For example, the tree’s form is not its leaves, roots, or trunk, but the combination of all these things making it an inseparable whole. But form will not appear as it is without matter for it is both unintelligible and impossible to grasp the form of a tree without taking into account its leaves, roots or trunk. In this light, form can be regarded as the being in actuality (coming from its potentiality as matter). Therefore, Aristotle claimed that the absolute truth of being can be understood by grasping its Form—a combination of matter (potentiality) and form (actuality). B. Analysis of Plato’s and Aristotle’s Philosophies Both Plato and Aristotle understood the importance of grasping the absolute truths or essences of beings in order to fully appreciate what is true and good. In each of their line of thinking, emphasis is placed on the role of the human mind in understanding the types of knowledge that vary in importance—knowledge on the being’s parts is lesser in value as compared with knowledge on the being’s absolute truth. As such, it is interesting to note that both philosophers (although not stated explicitly in their works) acknowledged a vital and determining characteristic of the human mind—that which is naturally inclined toward undertanding the absolute truth. Therefore, while they share opposing views on where essences are found—for Plato, it is in the world of simple ideas; while for Aristotle, it is in the Form of beings—they both agree that the absolute truth is that which ultimately makes a being be what it is. C. Contributions of Plato and Aristotle to Metaphysics and the Philosophy of the Mind Both works of Plato and Aristotle provided solid phlosophical foundations on the study of metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind. For one, Aristotle’s Form had been helpful in St. Thomas Aquinas’ further examination of the essence as a distinction between the being’s nature and ’esse’. Nature, to Aquinas, is Aristotle’s Form that becomes what it is through ’esse’ or the activity of being. The concept of God is infused in Aquinas’ teaching by positing that esse flows from a being that is pure and forever existing. In another mindset, Plato’s concept of ideas was contributory in the construction of Rene Descartes’ famous argument ’I think therefore I am’. To Descartes, it is through the recognition of one’s existence that a person is able to believe that he is in fact a being—notion that is premised on the thinking that all physical objects can deceive men for they are accessed by equally deceiving senses. Thus, the human mind is regarded by Descartes as a separate entity and can therefore be disembodied (just like Plato’s take on the human soul that is trapped in physical body). Lastly, Aristotle’s Form was attacked by Martin Heidegger in his famous ’oblivion of Being’ by pointing out that metaphysics should not be concerned with understanding the individual essences of beings but the Being in general (or that overarching state of being in beings). Conclusion In conclusion, it can be claimed that what Plato and Aristotle have provided us is an inquiry into how we perceive the things that surround us, and to what extent should we believe what we are able to sense. In this regard, the grasping of the core concept of things as the determinant of real knowledge must be taken into consideration for us to be able to attain what these philosophers called the absolute truth. Indeed, it is only through the experience of the absolute truth do we arrive at true happiness—that which answers all questions about what and why we all exist in this world. Works Cited Clark, Richard. Plato Overview. Literature Notes, n.d. Web. 22 Mar 2013. . Cohen, Mark. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. 2008. Web. 22 Mar 2013. . Cohen, Mark. Aristotle on Substance, Matter, and Form. 2004. Web. 22 Mar 2013. . Mikovic, Aleksandar. Temporal Platonic Metaphysics. University of Lusofona, 2009. Web. 19 Mar 2013. . Read More