Plato Vs Aristotle Essay Research Paper Plato

Plato Vs. Aristotle Essay, Research Paper

Plato vs. Aristotle

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar

views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly

illustrated by Raphael’s “School of Athens” (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura,

Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle

is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of

politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It

is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers

who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His

strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times:

for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of

the forms. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are

more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view

that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics,

he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual

state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is

the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical

approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he

is far from modern.

Plato’s concept of what politics and government should be is a direct

result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically

states that there is a higher “form” for everything that exists in the world.

Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the

form. According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their

representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. Only those who

love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve

understanding of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge

lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to

be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers

should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good.

Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or

trees, one must know the greatest form–form of the good–in order to rule. The

reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore,

philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule.

In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.

Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his

discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, ‘Why do you need

ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers.’ There are many layers to

the answer of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal

without having philosophers as rulers. This answer leads to the question, ‘Then

why do you need ideal states to begin with.’ The Republic starts with a

discussion of Justice which leads to the creation of the ideal state. The

reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice.

This does not mean, though, that there cannot be states without Justice.

Actually, Plato provides at least two reasons why the formation of a state

cannot be avoided. These are: 1. human beings are not self-sufficient so they

need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude

for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp

56-62). Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people–a

state–satisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermore, members can

specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of

society.

States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For

this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state.

The main way to institutionalize rules is through government and in the form of

laws. Plato’s The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people. It is a

separation of power amongst three classes–Rulers, Auxiliaries, Commoners–that

makes the most of each person’s natural abilities and strives for the good of

the community. The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three

classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently,

each individual.

The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain

tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political roles to

different members of each class. It appears that the only classes that are

allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the

Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because they <

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать