FREE ESSAY ON ARISTOTLE AND PLATO

ARISTOTLE AND PLATO

Aristotle refutes Plato's Theory of Ideas on three basic grounds: that the existence of
Ideas contradicts itself by denying the possibility of negations; that his illustrations
of Ideas are merely empty metaphors; and that they theory uses impermanent abstractions
to create examples of perception. Though the theory is meant to establish concrete
standards for the knowledge of reality, Aristotle considers it fraught with
inconsistencies and believes that the concept of reality depends upon all forms'
correlations to other elements. Ideas, Plato believes, are permanent, self-contained
absolutes, which answered to each item of exact knowledge attained through human thought.
Also, Ideas are in Plato's view concrete standards by which all human endeavor can be
judged, for the hierarchy of all ideas leads to the highest absolute - that of Good. In
addition, the theory claims that states of being are contingent upon the mingling of
various Forms of existence, that knowledge is objective and thus clearly more real, and
that only the processes of nature were valid entities. However, Aristotle attacks this
theory on the grounds that Plato's arguments are inconclusive either his assertions are
not al all cogent. Aristotle says, or his arguments lead to contradictory conclusions.
For example, Aristotle claims that Plato's arguments lead one to conclude that entities
(such as anything man-made) and negations of concrete ideas could exist - such as
non-good in opposition to good. This contradicts Plato's own belief that only natural
objects could serve as standards of knowledge. Also, Aristotle refutes Plato's belief
that Ideas are perfect entities unto themselves, independent of subjective human
experience. Ideas, Aristotle claims, are not abstractions on a proverbial pedestal but
mere duplicates of things witnessed in ordinary daily life. The Ideas of things, he says,
are not inherent to the objects in particular but created separately and placed apart
from the objects themselves. Thus, Aristotle says, Plato's idea that Ideas are perfect
entities, intangible to subjective human experience, is meaningless, for all standards
are based somewhere in ordinary human activity and perception. Thirdly, Aristotle assails
Plato's efforts to find something common to several similar objects at once, a perfect
exemplar of the quality those things share. Beauty is a perfect example; Plato considered
Beauty both a notion and an ideal, isolated by abstractions and fixed permanently while
its representatives fade away. Aristotle claims that abstractions like Beauty cannot be
cast as absolutes, independent of temporal human experience; the Idea of Beauty changes
with time and individual perceptions and cannot (as Plato felt) exist forever as a
concrete standard. Plato and Aristotle reach some agreement, though, on the topic of
reality. Plato believes that all reality was derived from his Ideas (which themselves
dealt with concrete hierarchy of rational ideas. St. Anselm, though, makes the most
dogmatic and logically tortuous case for God's existence, relying not upon explanations
of goodness, truth, or rational order of ideas but upon an absurd argument. He claims
that everyone has some sense of God, and he claims that for one to deny God's existence
is an invalid and contradictory assertion; therefore, God exists. Also, Anselm believes
that those capable of understanding God cannot believe that he does not exist - as if the
enormity of the idea was so clear than only a fool could not perceive it. His arguments
seem the weakest of the four viewpoints here, for they are riddled with dogma and assume
that God is a constant - using faith alone. Anselm considers faith paramount to logic or
other forms of thought and asks no questions as to what powers the universe or what
goodness is - he basically follows the Christian party line too closely to be valid. In
general, St. Augustine combines Plato's idea of a moral hierarchy with his own rational
observations of truth and goodness being embodied in their highest form by God. While
Plato wavers on God's superiority, Aristotle views man as god's pawn, and Anselm uses
tortuous dogmatic logic, Augustine's arguments seem to make the most sense from not only
a Christian point of view but from a moral and rational one as well. The philosophies of
Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Anselm on the existence of God all vary on the
issue of God's nature; though each thinker takes a different approach to why there is a
God, that of St. Augustine seems the most valid because he takes a rational stance and
does not dogmatically assume God's existence. Plato's philosophy assumes that God exists
as a supremely good being whose goodness is analogous to Plato's concrete concept or the
ultimate good. However, God and goodness are not one and the same; Plato does not
directly state that goodness is good, but that God is good, since he exemplifies the idea
at the top of Plato's hierarchy. In short, God does not equal goodness, but God
encompasses it better than any other being. This implies not that God is perfect, but
that God's intentions and actions have good aims - goodness may emerge from other sources
besides God. The main problem with Plato's philosophy is his inconsistency; he owes the
existence of his Ideas to both God and goodness, but he claims the two are not identical.
God becomes subordinate to the universals in Plato's ordered cosmos, and his defense of
God appears rather weak. While Plato assumes God exists as the ultimately good (but not
omnipotent) being, Aristotle questions God's active role in the universe and claims that
nature depends upon an immaterial Supreme Being. For example, he cites natural genesis
and the perpetuity of movement as evidence of God's immaterial existence, and he implies
that God is a self-sufficient, compelling force for both nature and man. Aristotle's
concept of God seems valid as a pre-scientific explanation of the universe; however, he
seems to ignore God's embodiment of moral goodness and man's ability to think and act
freely and still be good. He believes that all goodness comes from within God and that
the goodness in man is drawn toward God and nothing else. Aristotle's ideas on God seem,
from a modern point of view, effective only as explanations of the supernatural and even
of the miracle of life. St. Augustine links God with rational thought and states that
human knowledge of truth depends upon man's relationship to God. His argument moves him
from existence of the self to the objectivity of truth and finally to God's reality.
Augustine assumes that God is a rational being and that the rational and the good are
identical. Only God could be superior to truth, he says, and therefore must be the
ultimate good; therefore, truth, goodness, and God are one and the same. His argument
seems fairly clear-eyed and rational, for he does not approach God's goodness
dogmatically or automatically assume God's existence. Instead, he works toward that end
by evaluation the rationality of truth and goodness, and he casts God in that role as the
ultimate embodiment of both. In general, Augustine implies, God represents goodness and
occupies the pinnacle of the concept like unity and twoness). He considers unity and
goodness the combined center of his system of Ideas and stated that the Ideas had to be
more real and concrete than any objects of ordinary experience. Aristotle, meanwhile,
agreed with Plato's notion that the immaterial (form) and the material (matter) were
distinctly separate entities; however, he did not share Plato's belief that all forms
were permanent, freestanding truths; he felt that form correlated to matter. Ideas, he
stated, correlated to something material and were thus changeable and often dependent
upon the observer. In general, Aristotle refutes Plato on the grounds that his Theory of
Ideas tries too hard to establish concrete, universal definitions for things that depend
too much on the material. Though both thinkers agree on the separation of the material
and immaterial (which gave both a somewhat similar view of God), they still differ
sharply over the permanence of standards by which human nature and endeavor can be
judged.