The Comparison of Philosophies of Plato Aristotle and Plotinus - Essay Example

Plato Plato and his writings through the Platonic Dialogues constitute one of the foundational elements of the Western philosophic tradition. Over the course of Plato’s career his works span an enormous array of subjects. While the ideas in his early works are greatly attributed to Socrates, who was Plato’s teacher and mentor, his middle works, notably the Republic are regarded by scholars as Plato’s own philosophy. Even though his philosophy spans a broad array of issues, there are a number of topics that have been identified as central to his works. Perhaps one of the most central ideas of Platonic philosophy is his theory of forms, as understood through the Problem of the One and Many. This essay examines Plato’s theory of forms as it evolves throughout his philosophy and considers a number of issues and ideas that are central to Platonic philosophy. Meno In an early dialogue, Meno, Plato introduces an early incarnation of his theory of forms. The dialogue begins with a discussion of virtue, with Meno and Socrates discussing what can be rightly determined to be virtue when somebody has no idea what it is? Meno asks, "And how will you inquire into a thing when you are wholly ignorant of what it is? Even if you happen to bump right into it, how will you know it is the thing you didn't know?" (80). This question has famously been referred to as Meno’s Paradox. The problem is that if one already knows something then they will not need to discover it as they already know it, and if they don’t know it then how will they know what they are looking for. Socrates answers by referring to the Soul. He states that since the Soul has been around forever, it has seen all things. For Socrates then, the Soul has been reborn countless times so that when attempting to learn or understand something one is not trying to learn something new, but merely to remember something that has already been learned. As Meno is understandably doubtful of Socrates’ claims he calls over one of his slaves and asks Socrates to demonstrate. Socrates draws a square in the dirt and without telling him directly establishes that one side of a square that is four square feet, is two feet. He then asks the slave to determine the side of a square if the area is doubled and the slave answers him wrong. Still without telling him, Socrates shows the slave his mistake without through questioning rather than showing him directly. Soon the slave comes to understand that he is mistaken, to which Socrates indicates the slave is in a state of aporia. The state of aporia is a more advanced level of knowledge than simply not knowing according to Socrates. From this point Socrates proceeds to ask Meno’s slave a number of questions about further elements of the square that are drawn. Eventually Meno’s slave realizes what Socrates has been attempting to demonstrate, and he grasps this truth without having Socrates tell him directly. According to Socrates this is evidence of the Forms and demonstrates that the Soul has been reborn countless times. He concludes, “you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present--that is, what you do not recollect" (86), a reference to the acquisition of Ideas. While this is the first time the argument for the immortality of the Soul emerges in Plato, it surfaces in later dialogues, most notably in the middle books of the Republic and Phaedo, as well as Timaeus. Theory of Forms The Platonic, or Socratic, Theory of Forms emerges throughout Plato’s Dialogues. After Meno, they are again mentioned in Phaedo. In Phaedo Socrates argues that equal portions of sticks or stones are elements of the same type of Form or Idea as they both participate in the Form of Equality. It’s difficult to objectively ascertain the extent to which the Form of Equality is uniquely defined as an absolute value, as at times Plato seems to present it as relative, while at other times he claims that it is an essential and definitive category. Later in Phaedo other categories of Forms are identified. In addition to the Form of Equality, Socrates adds the Forms of Great and Small as well as the Form of Tall. In the Republic and the Symposium Socrates references the Form of Beauty. In a great deal of Platonic Dialogues mathematics are equated with Forms of Beauty and perfect form. For instance in the Timaeus Socrates argues mathematics in terms of music theory, and the construction of the Pythagorean Scale; he also references the Golden Ratio. In attempting to relate the Form of Beauty to an absolute value he argues that some forms are an approximation of the ‘actual’ absolute form. For Plato this functions so that he is able to argue that certain Forms are closer in reality to the perfect absolute Form of reality. Evolution of the Theory of Forms In the later dialogues Plato seems to amend his earlier Theory of the Forms as exemplified in Meno and early and middle dialogues. In the Parmenides the seminal ‘Third Man Argument’ is introduced. In this theory the belief that process to which the Forms come into being is mediated by the concept of infinite regress. This is an objection made to Plato’s theory of forms by the philosopher and dialogue namesake Parmenides. The objection is such that if objects, for instance a stick of one size and a stone of one size, are both elements of the Form of Great and Small then what occurs when they are also grouped among another group of forms. In this sense, the forms become an element of the infinite theory of regress as their true nature is continually deferred among new types of forms and classifications. One could consider Derrida’s philosophy of the endless play signifiers in this regard, as the definitive and objective nature of an object is continually deferred to and supplemented by reference another object. Scholars debate whether Plato believed that the Theory of Forms was subject to the problem of infinite regress, as Aristotle did. It’s been argued that the extent to which for all objects there are is a perfect form is debatable. For instance, it’s not entirely understood if Plato only meant that there were only perfect forms for the Forms of Beauty, Equality, Justice, and Size, or if this was meant to be extended to the gamut of terminology. In the Republic he seems that if there is a Form for nearly every object – he even writes about a Form of the Bed. Some scholars (Kraut 1992) argue that Plato may have come to believe that there was a Form for every group of objects that could be grouped together with an underlining similarity or theme. In this instance, knowledge (or what Plotinus terms the Intelligence) represents the ability to grasp the unity of these forms. Personal Reflections on Plato’s Theory of Forms While Plato’s Theory of Forms makes a number of interesting points, in applying this to one’s personal philosophy I have a number of consistent objections. While Socrates attempts to prove his theory of forms through his dialogue with Meno’s slave and it is true that he never directly tells the slave what the answer is, one can argue that through his questioning he is actually teaching Meno’s slave. Also, when distinguishing between the absolute and relative values and existential perspective versus the forms as essence, the Plato’s seems to verge on the objective definitions of his Forms. Ultimately, it seems to me that an understanding of reality along a structural, post-structural, or even existential context is more in-line with reality, as the use and forms of external objects seems fluid in reality. Concerning a cosmology of ideas that have precedent in a transcendent reality, it seems that while with mathematics developing examples are much easier, when one extends these concepts into language and art the absolute reality of objects breaks down. For instance, can one really state that there is an objective definition of ‘love’ or what constitutes a good film or song? Aristotle Student of Plato, Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle is one of the most renowned thinkers in Western philosophy. While influenced by Plato and in-directly Socrates, Aristotle ultimately rejected Plato’s theory of forms and considerably developed his own philosophic system. While Aristotle had a renowned writing style, none of his polished writings exist today, only notes for manuscripts; as a result, his writings are oftentimes difficult to read and interpret. Aristotle is renowned for developing the first forms of logic wherein the validity of an argument can be determined by examining its structure rather than its content. He also set down a number of categories of knowledge, including ethics, biology, and mathematics, which are still implemented today. His understanding of ethics and the good life are firmly rooted in these logical understandings of knowledge. This essay considers Aristotle’s philosophy on ethics and the good life as they relate to his views on the soul and happiness, and asks whether one can apply these comments to life today. Ethics Aristotle understands ethics to be the human’s attempts to achieve the highest good. While other pursuits in life are merely means to another end, for Aristotle ethics are the ultimate end. This ultimate end is what Aristotle understands as happiness. Aristotle recognizes that happiness means different things for different people so he develops a more in-depth description of what it actually constitutes. For Aristotle happiness must be an element of human nature and it must be derived from personal experience. In this understanding then, happiness cannot be understood as some easily definable entity that an individual can point to and extend to every living human. It is also something that is unique to humans and cannot be an element of the animal or plant soul. Therefore, since separate and unique to the human soul is the element of rationality, happiness is firmly an element of human rationality. Aristotle also develops his theory on ethics as it relates to friendship, or what he refers to as Philia. Hughes (2001, pg. 168) notes that his concept of friendship has a number of connotations: young lovers (1156b2), lifelong friends (1156b12), cities with one another (1157a26), political or business contacts (1158a28), parents and children (1158b20), fellow-voyagers and fellow-soldiers (1159b28), members of the same religious society (1160a19), or of the same tribe (1161b14), a cobbler and the person who buys from him (1163b35) In all of these elements there is the role of getting along well with someone. Aristotle offers a number of roles one must assume in developing Philia in these contexts. One of his predominant points is that the individual should wish for the other person that which benefits them over themselves. Aristotle believes that Philia is a necessary element for happiness. Aristotle notes that among the types of relations that are also different types of friendship: utility, good, and pleasure. The first level of friendship is that of utility wherein the friendship is entirely based on buying or exchanging goods. In this level of friendship conflicts most frequently arise. The next level of friendship is that of pleasure. At this level of friendship the relationship is based on a shared mutual interest or activity. In this regard, the friendship might disband when the individuals lose interest in the activity. The final level of friendship is that of the good. At this level of friendship, the relationship is based on mutual appreciation of each other’s characters. This friendship lasts as long as the individuals remain generally the same person. Aristotle also considers the idea that friendship and happiness are intertwined. He considers the possibility of a person attaining happiness while living a solitary existence. He answers this quandary by stating that for an individual they must be busy and preoccupied with life and through the act of friendship this is most easily accomplished. For the solitary individual their life is difficult because their life is lacking fulfillment in many regards. Soul and Psychology of the Mean In defining the soul Aristotle argues that it is the realization of the natural body. His investigation of the soul encompasses a philosophical mode of investigation that considers the nature of the mind and the body. As one might expect elements of Aristotle’s concept of the soul encompass psychological concerns. For Aristotle the mind and the body are unified much in the same way that a picture and its paints are unified. The body and its functions only gain their actual meaning through the inclusion of the soul. Aristotle differentiates between lower and higher forms of existence. It’s notable that he leaves no room for evolution in this equation as these beings are fixed in their place. The higher beings on the scale are in their position because of their more complex level of internal organization. The element that gives them their more complex internal organization is the soul. In this sense, the soul is not a transcendent or nebulous being as in Plato or Plotinus, but is rather the elements that give organization to the being’s internal functions. The soul then takes its form in a variety of biological functions that are different in each form of existence. Even the human soul for Aristotle is merely the collection of these internal functions. Animals, conversely, have a simpler soul that functions to supply them with nutrition; animals also have a movement function of the soul which is unique to their form of existence. Aristotle differentiates between the soul in plants and animals with that of humans by stating that the human soul has a rational element that comes into play. Polis In Aristotle’s Politics he discusses his concept of the polis, or city. Aristotle states that, “It is clear that all partnerships aim at some good, and that the partnership that is most authoritative of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and aims at the most authoritative good of all. This is what is called the city or the political partnership” (1252a3). In this sense one can see how Aristotle’s concept of polis can be seen to be a macro-conception of his smaller scale understanding of Philia. While the traditional concept of the political city state is defined along economic lines, for Aristotle it is more an element of partnership. For him politics should function to develop in the citizens of the state the type of attitude in which the greatest cooperation and partnership occurs. When considering the role of power and control in politics Aristotle disagrees with the then popular opinion that political control is the same as power relationships in other relationships; these include father and son, employer and employee, kings over subjects and other such relationships. Instead, Aristotle argues that these power relations need to be understood on an individual basis. Personal Reflection While Plato and Plotinus theories are in many regards abstract and difficult to apply to one’s contemporary daily life, Aristotle’s philosophy is much more ascribable to modern times. This might be an element of his arguments being founded in logic and structure, whereas Plato’s theories oftentimes seem to veer towards ambiguity. One of the aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy that I found most appropriate was his division of friendships. While this is not as complex or philosophically rigorous as other theories, the division of friendship into elements of utility, pleasure, and good makes a great deal of sense to my existence. His emphasis on the importance of friendship to happiness is also important, as it seems true that there is an element of friendship and the highest state of existence that are interrelated. In all, it seems that Aristotle’s outlook is much more aligned with rationality. One can consider his lucid division of knowledge that is still utilized today. Even his definition of the soul as strictly intertwined with biological functions is a concept that seems valid to contemporary existence. Furthermore, his understanding of the city-state, or polis, is an interesting concept. While one might be wary of 1984-esque government control of morality and similar areas normally reserved for religion, one must wonder if government should carry within it some sense of moral purpose and if the directionless and rampant consumerism that seems to pervade Western culture is actually the most appropriate means of existence. Plotinus Plotinus is regarded as the founding thinker in Neo-Platonism, as his theories are greatly rooted in those of Plato and Aristotle. He was an Egyptian born philosopher who developed a universe of discourse that was grounded in his philosophy of the One; however, his cosmology also included the elements of the Intelligence, and the Soul. For him all existence ‘emanates’ from these three elements. Plotinus became a teacher in Rome for twenty-years and one of his most famous students, Porphyry, began recording his ideas and set them down in what is titled the Enneads. While the Enneads are greatly influenced by Plato they are not merely a replication of Platonic theories, as they add considerable new insight and function to in many regards question the original Platonic dialogues. This essay considers Plotinus universe of discourse as it emanates from his philosophy of the One, and considers the interpretations of its foundational elements. Interpretation of Plato One of the foundational texts in Plotinus’ thought is Plato’s Timaeus. In this dialogue Plotinus considers the nature of the creation of the physical world. Plotinus interprets Plato’s Timaeus in a highly symbolic way. Rather than the power of the creator, what Plato terms the Demiurge, emanating from a creative capacity, for Plotinus the Demiurge’s power emanates from a power of contemplation and insight which is derived from it. While different interpretations of Plato’s Demiurge present him more as a traditional creator, in the vein of the Hebrew God, for Plotinus the Demiurge is better understood as an entity that manages the passive state of matter. The Demiurge rather than physically creating the form of being contemplates its true nature and governs its existence. This facet of Plotinus’ thought is most closely aligned with the Intelligence element of his cosmology. However, for Plotinus this Intelligence only exists as it contemplates that which has come before. As a result there must be an entity that exists before, which for Plotinus is understood not as a sort of God or essence, but rather as a fundamental cause to that which emanates from it. This cause is referred to as the One. For Plotinus the One is to be understood as an entity but the lack of an entity which, nonetheless, permits the individual to understand that they are not the Supreme Being for which existence emanates, but necessarily that which comes after the One. In this sense, the One is perhaps best located along negative theological lines as it’s not the essence that Plotinus indicates but an indescribable being that through contemplation the forms emanate. It is this ‘We’ or the ‘Soul’ that is the element of Plotinus universe of discourse that does this contemplating. The One The concept of the One is a very fluid concept and is never directly defined by Plotinus; nevertheless, the concept represents the foundation of his philosophy. Much in line with contemporary Derridean concepts of the endless play of signifiers, Plotinus indicates that the One cannot be directly comprehended through linguistic elements or traditional reasoning. It is only through the experience of the power of the one that a person can begin to approach a sense of understanding concerning its means. Plotinus is vague as to how the power of the One is best understood but indicates that it is not simply through some sort of mental or physical action. Instead, the power of the One is grasped through a sort of transcendent form of contemplation or intellectual vision. While the One transcends all forms of existence, the One itself is not a form of existence, but rather the cause of these existences through the contemplation of the One. In this sense, the one can be understood to be the source or cause of all these existences only so much as these existences contemplate the One. Still, in another sense, the One cannot be understood to be a cause as this sense of the One indicates that there is an ever present physical existence or being, when in actuality it’s only through the contemplation of the One that existence is brought into being. The being that emanates from the One is understood along two poles of understanding: contemplation and creative extension. These poles can be interpreted in simple terms to be elements of more static existence versus aspects of creative expression. In all instances it is through the contemplation by the Intelligence of the One that existence comes into form. Emanation Since describing the One as strictly a ‘cause’ is not entirely accurate since a cause indicates motion, which necessitates a physical essence, Plotinus instead speaks of a concept known as ‘emanation’ from which existence comes into form. The One is such that while it is not a physical essence it nevertheless is such that it radiates existence and necessitates overflows. These overflows constitute the Intelligence which contemplates the One and brings into existence the forms of being. One may wonder then why the One in its supreme and perfect form must have any sort of overflow or emanation. Plotinus answers this quandary by stating that the answer cannot be understood through typical reason but must be comprehended through Plotinus’ concept of the Soul. When the Soul is ready to accept the One then it appears to it in a means that exceeds linguistic description. Plotinus writes, “In turning toward itself The One sees. It is this seeing that constitutes The Intelligence” (V.1.7). Presence Another problem relating to the One is that since it is not an essence or a cause how then can it be contemplated by the Intelligence. Plotinus answers this dilemma by stating that it is not exactly the essence that the Intelligence is contemplating but that it is rather a ‘process’ of emanation that it is contemplating. In this sense, the Intelligence then is the One’s meta-vision of itself. The Intelligence then is the first principle of the universe. It exists outside the One, yet it is this element through its contemplation of the factors of radiation of the One to which all existence of the forms proceeds. The Intelligence The Intelligence is one of the three primary elements of Plotinus’ universe of discourse. One might consider later formulations by the Modern philosopher Descartes who famously stated, “I think, therefore I am.” While Plotinus’ understanding of the Intelligence and Descartes cogito ergo sum are not directly parallel they both share the belief that all rational thought, in a sense, proceeds from these foundational assumptions. For Plotinus’ the Intelligence is more of a transcendent form, in some degrees it is closely aligned with a God figure, as it is out of this first principle of existence that the universe of discourse exists. Plotinus argues, “to think and to be are one and the same” (V.9.5). As stated, it is through the Intelligence that the One is contemplated. The contemplation of the One then gives rise to Ideas, and this then gives rise to the Soul. The Ideas are always residing forms which must be contemplated by the Intelligence to be brought into existence. Interpretation of Aristotle One of the fundamental concepts that Plotinus disagrees with Aristotle is related to the understanding of Being. For Plotinus, Being is given a specific place, even though it is not explicitly defined. For Plotinus it is not a physical being but a process. This is the primary difference between Plotinus cosmology and that of Aristotle who posits a belief in the ‘prime mover’ concept. Aristotle’s concept presents a belief in a physical and causal entity not, as in the instance of Plotinus, an entity relegated to contemplative existence. It’s important to differentiate Being for the Intelligence. The Intelligence is relegated to the contemplation of the One which gives rise to Being. In this sense then, Being is the differentiation or even ‘difference’ (a term that bears resemblance in form and meaning to Derrida’s later term difference), that distinguishes objects as an essence. Conslusion Plato’s Theory of Forms as beginning with the Meno dialogue to the middle, and finally through to the late dialogues has been demonstrated to illustrate notable changes. The early incarnation as demonstrated by Socrates demonstration with Meno’s slave is reliant on a geometric proof and has a decidedly objective interpretation, as the slave recollects the true nature of reality through his Soul which has only been dormant. In the middle dialogues, notably the Republic and the Symposium the Forms take on a more developed interpretation as Plato refers to a number of distinct categories of Forms, including the Form of Beauty and even the Form of Bed. Finally, in the later dialogues, as demonstrated in Parmenides an objection is given to the Theory of Forms as it is subject to an infinite level of regress, complicating its claim to an absolute essence or reality. As can be seen Aristotle philosophic insight is far reaching and greatly penetrating. His understanding of ethics and Philia consider the nature of the highest order of existence, the nature of the soul, and different forms of friendship. His understanding of polis demonstrates his shrewd understanding of the political realm and advances his theory that the political order should function to encourage the members of the city-state to engage in morally virtuous partnerships for the benefit of the common good. Ultimately, Aristotle’s ideas are rooted in logic and as a result have a high level of applicability for contemporary discourse. As can be seen Plotinus’ universe of discourse is rooted in the concept of the One from which all of existence emanates. Following the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul ultimately come into action and give essence to the forms of Being. While the concepts of Plotinus’ cosmology seem highly abstract and ambiguous today, his concept of an entity that avoids direct linguistic apprehension is echoed in a number of philosophers and post-structuralist thought, most notably the contemporary incarnation of Derrida’s theory of deconstruction. References Plotinus, (1991) The Enneads, tr. Stephen MacKenna. Penguin Books. Kraut, Richard (1992). The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plato (1997). Trns. John Cooper. Complete Works of Plato. Hacket Publishing Company. Aristotle. The Politics. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing, 1998. Hughes, Gary (2001). Aristotle on Ethics. Routledge Read More