Aristotle and Platos Philosophies - Book Report/Review Example

Aristotle and Platos Philosophies Compare and contrast the different parts of the soul for Plato and Aristotle? Which of the two accounts do you find more persuasive? Aristotle and Plato emerge as some of the top philosophers that lived in Greece between the fourth and fifth centuries BCE (Before the Common Error). Although there were other views about nature, it was Aristotle and Plato's spiritual views of nature that had more weight. This paper compares and contrasts Aristotle and Plato's views on the different parts of the soul. It will also explain why Aristotle's views are more persuasive than Plato's. Plato believed that the world is merely an imitation of the real world. Accordingly, Plato believed in a world of ultimate reality, where physical things can never be trusted. This is because he believed that physical things are imperfect. In fact, according to Plato's philosophy, people's souls existed long before they entered the bodies and that the souls are external. Nevertheless, Plato believed that people's souls are kept captive by the body, which results in a conflict from within. Plato divides the internal tension into three parts (Baird 2010, p. 55). These include the upper part which is responsible for controlling the reflection and thought. It is this part of the soul that gives the individual conscious awareness. In this sense, it is the very part of the soul that analyses, thinks, weighs options, and gauges what is best. Second is the chest, which is the spirited or hot-blooded part of the soul (Baird 2010, p. 55). The second part of the soul is the part that gets angry, loves to challenges, honor, and victory. The third part is the lower area, which is responsible for controlling appetite, such as bodily ease, sexual desires, physical satisfaction and material wealth (Baird 2010, p. 56). Plato noted that these tensions are in conflict with each other. Therefore, according to Plato, the best way of achieving peace and stability is by bringing the three tensions into balance. Aristotle came up with a down-to-earth philosophy that ultimately redefined the views of the ‘soul' and ‘form' from the beliefs and teachings of Plato. Aristotle began his philosophy by differentiating between ‘matter' and ‘form' (Baird 2010, p. 53). In addition to the two elements, he noted that one additional substance is the compound of matter and form. In his view, the souls of animals and plants are what make them to be living things. In his explanation of the soul, Aristotle makes mention of the different grades of potentiality and actuality. He concludes by noting that soul is capacity to the extent that anything that grows, nourishes itself, thinks and does such other things are alive (Baird 2010, p. 54). Aristotle argued that form is the essence of everything, and the existence of the form is dependent on the physical. He also describes matter using the eye and an animal. In this case, Aristotle stated that in case the eye was to be an animal, then its soul would have been its sight. By this, Aristotle was trying to imply that in the absence of the soul, the animal cannot possess the vision; thus it is incomplete. Aristotle identified three types/degrees of souls namely human (rational soul), vegetative (nutritive soul), and animal (sensitive soul) (Baird 2010, p. 159). Accordingly, Aristotle suggested that the soul and the body are dependent on each other as none can exist without the other. This implies that the body and the soul go together and cannot be separated. For example, Aristotle observed that the human soul cannot fit a plant nor can a plant's soul suit a human being. In conclusion, Aristotle's views are more persuasive than Plato's looking at the reality. For instance, history shows that the world has undergone significant changes, which are expected to continue in the future as observed by Aristotle. This is unlike Plato's views, which appear very much pessimistic. For instance, if Plato's philosophies were to be right, then there would be no meaning for life. The only persuasive view from Plato's view is when he observes that the human soul would gain stability and perfection afterlife. Reformulate Aristotle's argument from Book X of the Ethics for the value of the contemplative life. What are two shortcomings of this argument? Aristotle is one of the greatest philosophers whose views have influenced people to a great extent. Being a student of Plato until his death, his earlier philosophies were greatly influenced by Plato. However, Aristotle later changed his mind and came up with his own philosophies that are very different from those of Plato. However, his concept of contemplative life has been received with mixed reactions from the society. Aristotle argues that for an individual to live a genuinely happy life, the individual must engage in intellectual contemplation (Baird 2010, p. 164). He proceeds to state that because nature requires people to be rational, the only sure way to perfect nature is through rational reflection. In his view, Aristotle notes that the highest good toward which all human activities are directed is happiness (Baird 2010, p. 158). Happiness can be attained by living a virtuous life. While this is the case, moral virtue is the mean between deficiency and virtue. He further notes that moral virtue is not abstractly achievable but requires moral motivation, purpose, and conscious choice (Baird 2010, p. 159). In Aristotle's understanding, contemplation means an activity that results from what one does and consist of understanding (Baird 2010, p. 163). As a matter of fact, everyone also understands something upon grasping what the thing entails, including characteristics, nature, and purpose. As such, Aristotle uses God and heavens as the best objects of contemplation. In his philosophy, Aristotle strongly believed that God usually contemplates before reacting to anything. Therefore, since God is the perfect thing, He must contemplate God. Aristotle proceeds to note that God is a contemplation activity and that the purpose of the contemplative life is to be involved in this divine activity. Aristotle's arguments on the value of contemplation have certain shortcomings and gaps that have remained unresolved. For instance, Aristotle failed to provide complete and systematic account of how contemplation could result in happiness. He only stated this in theory but failed to provide a real life example of how engaging in contemplative activity results in the greatest happiness. Therefore, in order for Aristotle to convince his audience, he ought to have gone further to provide a detailed a sequential explanation on how contemplation produces happiness. References Baird. F. (2010). Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida, 6th Edn. New York: Pearson. Read More