Contrast of Plato and Aristotles View of Form - Assignment Example

Brief 598555 Contrast Plato and Aristotle’s View of Form. Which one makes sense to you, and why? Plato’s and Aristotle’s respective approaches tothe question of form have exercised philosophical thought for over 2000 years. In section 1 of this essay, I compare and contrast their opposing views. I show that in many ways their contrasting views exemplify their different approaches to the philosophical investigation of reality and existence. Having said this, there are a number of important similarities between the two approaches. In section 2, I argue that although Plato’s arguments make some sense, I am more sympathetic to Aristotle’s approach to form. What are Plato’s and Aristotle’s contrasting views of form? Both Plato and Aristotle use the theory of “form” to explain the essence of things which exist in the real world. They both stem from a philosophical concern with what constitutes the essence of the things which are susceptible to change in the world, that is the things that we see such as man, horse, table, chair, et cetera. Put simply, Greek philosophers (before and after Plato and Aristotle) argued that these things were composed of substance which had a certain morphological form (morphe). Aristotle’s and Plato’s vision of what constitutes ‘form’ relates to what makes the substance of different phenomena what it is; in other words, what makes a table a table; what makes a man, a man. Their answers however differ greatly. Plato argued that such instances of phenomena also partake of what he sees as an ideal form. For Plato, the forms are unchanging, eternal, essences or ideas which form the basis of the phenomena which occur in the sensible world. For Plato, the phenomena we see or perceive as a table are an imitation of a particular ideal form of the notion “table”: they are the blue-print from which the creator (or indeed creation) makes a real, sensible, but imperfect copy. This is true for both real things—tables, men, animals—and also for more abstract qualities such as justice, truth, and beauty. For Plato, each thing we know in the phenomenological world—table, chair, act of justice—partakes of what he sees as an ideal initial form: the form constitutes the essence which allows all examples of just acts to be seen as partaking of the form of justice. There are two important considerations for to remember here. For Plato, humans in the sensible world cannot conceive of the world of forms—they are beyond our capacity for sensorial, or experiential, knowledge. Secondly, such forms are entirely removed from temporal or spatial notions: they exist beyond our concept of space and time; the form of “good” or “justice” for instance, is not culturally defined (Nash, 84). In contrast, Aristotle tells us in his Metaphysics that form concerns the way in which substance exists in the world. Aristotle believed that all things were composed of form and matter, with matter being the raw material and form being the structure which allowed matter to be in a way. Like Plato, Aristotle argued that form constituted a timeless, universal essence. However he differed, critically in his assumptions about the relationship between individual examples of matter and their relationship to forms. Form, Aristotle argued existed in each particular example of a phenomenon. A table was a table because it was a combination of matter and the form of table, which is the structure of a table being a table. In contrast to Plato, form did not constitute the ideal to which all examples everywhere attempted to live up (and was hence universal) but rather was inherent in each example or particular instance of an animal, dog, or table (and was hence universal) (Nash, 100-1). There are then, a number of points at which Aristotle and Plato intersect such as their assumption that forms are universal; and indeed, that forms constitute an essential element of the real world’s sensible phenomena. They differ however, in the matter of where that form actually exists (in a non-sensible, world of ideas vs. in each particular example of a class of objects). I believe that Aristotle’s approach to form is more valid than Plato’s. This is based on two assumptions. Firstly, Plato’s understanding of form posits an external phenomenon (the form of justice) which is ultimately unknowable to human minds. This seems unrealistic for two reasons—how do we determine that an object in this sensory world partakes of that unknowable model; secondly, if that model operates a blueprint for an imperfect copy in this world, how can we determine that this is an imperfect copy if we are ultimately unable to understand the true essence of the original? These questions undermine my belief in the validity of Plato’s view of the form. There are also positive reasons for following Aristotle’s approach. 1. Aristotle’s assumptions about form being contained in the way substance is shaped in a particular way allows for a detached view of the biological diversity of the universe. It allows us to understand not what something replicates, but has fundamental capacity to allow the individual to understand something on its own terms. It also has the benefit of being able to explain why something is the way it is, rather than simply pointing out what it is a copy of, as Plato did. 1. Which Moral System Makes Most Sense to You? In his Life’s Ultimate Questions, Nash presents a number of different moral or ethical systems, including Hedonism, Empiricism, Rationalism, Relativism, Naturalism, Atheism, and Materialism (Nash, 61). Of these systems, I believe that the hedonistic system makes most sense to me. In this essay, I make adduce two arguments to support this belief in the pursuit of pleasure. Firstly, I show that it overcomes some of the failures of other systems, such as Rationalism. Secondly, I show that the hedonic ethical system (as presented my Mill and Bentham) has positive benefits of being both contextual, reasonably objective, and beneficial to the greatest number of people. I believe that it is impossible to agree with moral systems which present either moral laws (such as the system of Moral law which was proposed by Augustine or Thomas Aquinas) which are assumed to be universally correct or moral systems based on the solely, and necessarily, rational evaluation of ethical truths or beliefs (such as the rational evaluation of justice by Plato and other rationalist philosophers) (Nash, 76-8; 160-1; 356-69). I disagree with the idea of universal moral laws because empirical evidence seems to suggest that it is difficult to discover ethical laws or beliefs which have the same moral force everywhere—in other words, universal laws are not true everywhere universally, merely believed to be so. A good example of this is the question of murder. In a Christian system, because it is believed that only God has the right of life and death over his creation, suicide is a moral sin. But this is not the case, within other cultural systems, such as Japanese warrior or samurai culture, or indeed the ancient Roman aristocracy. This raises an immediate question about the legitimacy of claiming, in a multi-cultural world which respects other religious and cultural systems, how we can say the Christian view of murder is universally true. I also disagree with systems predicated on the rational interpretation or understanding/knowledge of justice. This is because rationalism is a culturally specific quality. Plato’s understanding of rational interpretation assumed a number of things which were specific to his view of the world: that there was a universal concept of justice, that could be rationally understood; that rational interpretation would always produce the same understanding of the phenomenon or ethical concept which was being considered. Plato’s concept of justice rationally understood, reflects the understanding of reason—and the reasonable views—of a fifth century, Athenian man. In other words, it is another form of universalism which denies the ethical complexity of different and diverse cultures and historical periods. Hedonism has gone through a number of changes since it was first introduced in the ancient philosophical sects led up Aristippus (Cyrenaics) and Epicurus (Epicureans). In these philosophies, a particular focus was laid on the individual’s assessment of their own sensorial or physical and psychic pleasure, which was deemed to be the highest good, and therefore the guiding principle in all ethical action (Nash, 350-1). I do not agree with this system: it places too much emphasis on the individual, and his particular understanding of his own pleasure. The aspect of hedonism I think makes most sense is that produced by Mill and Bentham and is commonly known as Utilitarianism (what Nash calls Altruistic hedonism) (350ff). My interpretation of this system is based on two factors. Firstly, it is a consequentialist ethical system (Nash, 351). It forces the ethically minded individual to evaluate the consequences of his or her actions. This is important because it allows, and indeed depends on, the individual to exercise his capacity to evaluate the ethical situation and determine the right course of action. Ethical systems based on Moral Law, for example, do have flexibility: murder is wrong in all circumstances. Utilitarianism allows for an evaluation of such acts in terms of their capacity to produce “utility” or pleasure (Nash, 351-2). This forces individuals to contemplate—or assess—how people will be affected by their actions. Secondly, it is a moral system which is focused on bringing the greatest benefit or pleasure (utility) to the largest number of people. This overcomes the potentially inherent individualism associated with ancient hedonism; it also helps overcome the potential disregard for consequences associated with moral law or rationalist ethical systems. At another level, it has the capacity to facilitate a broader degree of benefit within a community, or a particular culture. It is an inclusive ethical system that ties the individual to an understanding and an evaluation of what is best for the community, rather than what corresponds to the law, or what facilitates his own pleasure or success. There are two potential objections to this hedonic philosophy. 1. That the desire to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number can mean that some people are treated badly or unethically. This might occur in, for example, Stalinist Russia; 2. That the pursuit of pleasure might allow individuals to act inappropriately based on a false understanding of physical pleasure. Both of these criticisms are valid. It is for this reason that Mill introduced the idea of the hedonic calculus, or the framework through which people were able to evaluate their use of pleasure as the ultimate determinate of their actions (Nash, 352). The hedonic calculus ensures the individual assesses the ultimate nature of the pleasure he aims for: is it long-term, or short?; is it a higher pleasure (ie a pleasure of the soul), or a pleasure of the body?; how intense will the pleasure brought by my actions be? By asking themselves these (among other) questions, concerns about the mistreatment of others in the name of pleasure can be eliminated. It would be not be a long lasting (or higher pleasure) if one produced limited utility for the nation, by mistreating others as Stalin did. (Not to mention the fact that in Stalin’s system the utility at which he might aim, was generally the utility of the limited ruling community.) Nor would it be a long-term, or intense pleasure to act unethically in order to achieve a short-term, physical pleasure. As we can see, the altruistic hedonic system associated with the thought of Bentham and Mill has a number of benefits. It is hard to agree with the values of universalist moral systems because they assume a degree of universality to their moral beliefs which does not appear to occur. Secondly, there are positive reasons to follow utilitarianism: it is consequentialist, forcing individuals to evaluate how others are affected by their actions, and it is focused on bringing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Read More