A Level Religious Studies - Philosophy Aristotle More Convincing Than Plato?

“Aristotle's understanding of the world is more convincing than that of Plato.” Discuss.

Both Aristotle and Plato have given reasons as to why they understand the world in the way they do. Although it could be argued that Plato's view is more convincing, this essay with argue that Aristotle has a more persuasive understanding of the world around us.

Plato was a rationalist. He believed that reason is the ultimate way of gaining knowledge. In a world of constant change, Plato argued that it is difficult to gain knowledge in a world that is ever-changing. It is reason which gives us knowledge where there is no room for doubt, and so truths which are arrived at through reason have an enduring quality. Senses can be misleading, and because of this, it could be argued that Plato's understanding is more convincing because it does not rely on these senses. For example, the senses can give us information on what something feels like, whether it is rough or smooth, however the senses cannot quantify this; they do not tell us how rough or how smooth. Trusting these senses is hard and so we are forced to turn to reason, as logical processes of reason can provide people with a more certain conclusion.

However, Aristotle was an empiricist. For him, experience is considered the primary source of all knowledge. Encountering the world through our senses allows for us to form concepts and beliefs of our own. He believed that perception is what misleads us; how can we know if the colour one person sees is the same as the colour another person sees? The colour seen may be different to what it is labelled. Although the idea of empiricism says that knowledge can be reached by reflecting on sense experience, this experience always comes first, showing it is of increased importance. A wise person to a rationalist would be someone who has spent time in contemplation, whereas a wise person to an empiricist is someone who has lived through many experiences (cultures, countries, etc). This understanding is more convincing as it argues that experience is superior to reason. It comes first, and is the basis of all reason because without information from experience, it is weak and limited. This understanding is stronger than a rationalist view as we can look at the example of colour. How would you know what the colour blue looks like if you are colour blind? The only knowledge of blue people have is acquired through their experiences, which directly objects Plato's ideas.

Plato has a unique vision of the world, and this is that there is a world of appearance and world of Forms. In Book V (476f.) of The Republic, Plato argues that all objects we experience through our senses are particular things. We see beautiful things but never beauty; this is because beauty is a property that more than one thing can possess. The thing that these objects share is where the idea of a Form stems from. Beauty is separate thing that exists away from the beautiful objects, which led Plato to conclude that there is a world of Forms away from the world we know. Everything has a Form, and the Form is the perfect example of itself. Additionally, these Forms do not change and they cannot lose what they possess. For example, the Form of Beauty cannot lose it's beauty. Objects in the world of appearance (or world of particulars) are merely imperfect copies or shadows of a perfect thing. The existence of a particular relies on the Forms, which shows that they are superior. Plato's view of the world in this sense shows us that we have concepts of what we hold to be the ideal Form of something, without having experienced them. This suggests that our soul has been with the Forms before. Plato's analogy of the cave can be used to provide evidence for this. When the prisoners are released, their eyes adjust to the light. This is symbolic as the prisoner can not only see, but he can understand the true nature of things. This can be convincing because Plato's understanding of the world is explained through his writing and it seems plausible as we recognise beauty, truth and justice in objects. The idea that we have seen the perfect Form of these terms before makes sense, and so Plato's argument that our mind recalls what we remember from the world of Forms does too. On from this, it is somewhat convincing because Aristotle's notion of efficient cause does not tell us what has happened, only that some thing has happened. It is not specific and does not give detail; the term covers a broad range of changes that it can barely be considered informative.

Plato's pupil, Aristotle has the idea that there are Four Causes which account for a thing's existence. It is wider than something simple like this causing that, he uses this to show why things change and why things are like they are. The first cause is the material cause. This is the substance something is made out of. Without it, there would not be anything. Physics 11, 3 explains this clearly: “for example the bronze of the statue, the silver of the bowl”. The second cause is the formal cause. This is it's design that shapes the concept. Linking to the previous example, the silver bowl, it is shaped as a bowl and nothing else. The efficient cause comes next, and this is the thing's maker or builder. Something external brings about the effect. Finally, we have the final cause which is the purpose. The bowl has a job to hold fruit, and so it does this. Aristotle believed that this was true of everything and that everything has a goal and reason. This is a teleological view of reality. Aristotle also thinks that people have a purpose (this is Nicomachean Ethics) and someone who fulfils their purpose is a good person. This is much more convincing than Plato's world of Forms as the causes can be proved by the senses and experience. The human body can be used to prove purpose, as eyebrows keep sweat from getting in our eyes and eyelashes keep dust from getting in them. Looking at Plato's Forms, it is clear that they have no evidence at all, and although the analogy of the cave can be used to explain it, this is flawed. Perhaps it is true that Plato couldn't accept that reality can change. Also, the Forms do not have any use in the physical world as they cannot be applied here. Aristotle introduced the Third Man Argument. If the world of Forms exists, there is a perfect Form of Man. This Form would have to be based on a Form of the Form of a Man and this too would have to be based on a higher Form, and so ad infinitum. This outlines the idea that the Forms have no meaning.

Plato believes that a philosopher has not completed their studies until they understand the Form of the Good as this is the highest form of knowledge. The sun is often used as a simile for the sun as unless there is light, our eyes cannot see. It is important to understand however that the sun is superior as it is not light or sight. It is higher, and therefore better. The same can be said for the Form of the Good. Knowing things is impossible without it. The Form of the Good 'gives the objects of knowledge their truth and the knower's mind the power of knowing' (508a). Plato said that all things has a value that comes from the Form of the Good, and like the sun, it is higher and greater than everything else because it unites the other forms. It can sometimes be referred to as the Form of the Forms. We relate the perfect quality of the Forms to Goodness. This is a convincing understanding of the world as it shows that a philosophical understanding of the Good leads to more knowledge. Having a greater and broader knowledge of the Form of the Good will allow for a deeper understanding about reality. We can identify good in many things without there being a direct object which symbolises good to associate it with. This reinforces the point that it is convincing that we have innate knowledge from the world of Forms as Plato suggests.

Aristotle had the belief that there is a Prime Mover which is unmoved. Aristotle holds the view that change is eternal. If there was a first change, something would have to have triggered that change, and that would have been a change – he concluded that a chain of events begins with something that moves, but is unmoved in itself. The universe does not have an efficient cause, and so the Prime Mover is eternal as it has no start or end – it just is. The Prime Mover is not a creator but something that creates movement and change by putting a “pull” on things. This is not through the act of thought but by the final cause of things to seek their own perfection. This is a believable theory as it comes from Aristotle's own studies of the world he knew. In comparison to Plato's Form of the Good, they are not a part of this world and so cannot be seen in this world. Additionally, Aristotle's ideas can be applied to things in the world which can help us understand and explain them. This is an advantage over Plato, as if Plato is not certain on what exists in the world of Forms, then we cannot draw comparisons and relate it to the world we know.

To conclude, Aristotle's understanding of the world is more convincing than Plato's. Although some of Aristotle's theories have philosophical and scientific objections, he provides a detailed understanding of the world which is backed up by examples which are easily accessible to everyone. This, in turn, makes it more believable as we can make links between his ideas in everyday aspects of life. In some cases, however, Plato's rationalism and Aristotle's empiricism are both useful. In certain situations, reason can be more important whereas in others, experiences can be more telling. But when looking at both philosophers' view of the world, it comes down to evidence and there is simply no proof that the world of forms exists.