Discussions
Plato or Aristotle?
Posted by harveyavatar • 1/20/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: aristotle, philosophy, plato
Plato and Aristotle are considered to be the two antique sources of Western thought.
Do you think you are more Platonian or Aristolian? Why?
User Comments
-
I see myself related to Plato. I like Plato because his wisdom words have more personal relationship with people. But I disagree with Plato's preference on republic instead of democracy.
"Love is a serious mental disease - Plato"
Funny guy too. -
who said republic = no democracy ??-
Did I say anything about republic has no democracy? I was referring to Plato's personal view on democracy versus republic.
-
but you have to think is a republic not a democracy? otherwise your sentence makes no sense
-
Rephrase "but you have to think is a republic not a democracy" please. That doesn't make sense to me either.
-
is a republic not a democracy??
-
Republic has democracy in it.
Is that the answer that you are looking for? -
yes, then how is it possible to have republic instead of democracy if republic constitutes of democracy
it is the same as saying "But I disagree with Plato's preference on democracy instead of democracy" -
In general, democracy and republic are viewed as the same thing as both are elected by people. But there is still a difference.
Again when I said "But I disagree with Plato's preference on republic instead of democracy", I was referring to Plato's own personal opinion.
Plato disdains democracy and he considers democracy to be in the same list as tyranny. Hence if democracy is considered to be a close sibling to tyranny, where does republic fit in? In modern world, republic and democracy are almost the same.
That's the reason why I disagree with his personal view on democracy.
But fair enough as Plato used Athens as his model to justify his opinion. He believed that most people were too stupid to handle power. Again fair enough as his view was based upon the civilization during his time. He probably has a better view on current democracy if he's still alive today. -
you mention that plato puts democracy in the same list as tyranny
what are his reasons for such a thought?
the only difference that i can see that he may be suggesting, is that his argument is not actually "Plato's preference on republic instead of democracy" but instead "Plato's preference on republic instead of monarchy" which would then make sense, because both consist of a democracy but the structure of the hierarchy changes.
-
-
jjmezio,
Do you have any "wisdom words" of Plato in mind?-
It is difficult to narrow it down to one or even a few.
Plato is like your own grandfather who enlightens your thoughts particularly when you are in distress.
-
-
Plato has a poetic fiber which is absent in Aristotle's works, this is certain.
-
Plato is always good reading, stimulating, and even fun. I don't feel that about Aristotle.-
Lynnea,
Yes, I agree. And may I point out that many women prefer Plato to Aristotle, which is curious. More later.
-
-
Plato is good to read, I don't think much of his Realm of the Forms but it's an interesting concept. I haven't read much Aristotle yet so I may change my mind in a couple of months when I am better informed.-
Sisterofmercy,
Aristotle is much dryer to read; he is not a poet. Further, in his metaphysics, for example, he can go on for some pages, before realizing he has gone down the wrong path, and turning back.
Aristotle followed Plato for some 15-20 years, before leaving him. He did not believe in innate ideas and ideal forms (a form answer the question "what is it?"), and focussed on the senses and sensible realities.
Anyhow, I'll let you check it out for yourself.
-
-
False dichotomy. Between those, I'd go for Aristotle. It's the logical choice.-
Flamingpoodle,
False dichotomy? Yes and no
Aristotle is indeed the father of logic, but he only considered it to be a tool (=Organon), contrary to what many of his followers think today (who haven't understood his first philosophy).
Today there is a good case to be made that 99% of people are Platonian, even without knowing it. In other words, they are idealists, cutting out of reality what does not fit into their preconceived idea.
-
-
Epictectus, the source of stoicism, and writer of the Enchiridion is rarely acknowledged properly. Lots of people read Plato but few people can live by his principles. Epictetus set the moral tone and practical philosophy of people for centuries. In every day terms in some ways I think he was more important.-
Haven't looked into him too deeply wehiru
-
-
I'm not a fan of either. They are essential reading because they formed the basis of philosophical thinking for centuries, but I don't think either of them deserve as much credit as they receive.-
Aristotles disciples didn´t cut it. Later, the Latinists translated substance by what holds under, with important consequences downstream. -
I have no idea what that means...rephrase?
-
Short answer:
Substance is the translation of Ousia (Greek word)- permanence in being.The "Romans" having translated Ousia by substance, we have managed to understand Ousia as what holds under. And what is it that holds under? By Jove, it is the subject! And we have thus identified the first substance with substance - ie substance with the subject. Needless to describe the sort of mess this type of mistake entails... for let's be clear, we haven't gotten over it yet, and it is not at all clear that we will ever get over it. -
"let's be clear"
...that would be nice! still no idea what you are trying to say!
-
-
Forgot to mention Plato thought a womans soul was inferior to that of a man. Aristotle showed their soul to be "specifically" the same.
-
Aristotle considered women to be inferior to men by their very nature. Plato allowed for a woman as 'philosopher king', Aristotle believed women were incomplete men.
-
-
It really depends on whether you want to read: a logically explained treatise (Aristotle) or a story involving an argument between two groups of people and interpret the point from the discussion yourself (most of Plato's works involving Socrates).
I prefer the first for philosophical purposes and the latter for literary purposes. But, having a minor in Philosophy, I've grown tired of reading either of them.-
SiulaRuin,
This is utterly false.
-
-
So if Plato considered a woman's soul to be inferior to a man's, then why do so many women love Plato more than Aristotle? Did he write all those dialogues to seduce our feminine hearts? My, my, he would be an intellectual and philosophical Don Juan, wouldn't he? Maybe that's what made the Symposium so fun?
Gawdess, I feel blasphemous today! Whew!-
Lynnea,
It is my understanding Plato was not so much into seducing womens hearts
-
-
@harvey
see Plato's 'Republic', book II and Aristotle's 'Politics', book I
also from Aristotle:
Woman may be said to be an inferior man.
-- Poetics
The female is, as it were, a mutilated male.
-- Generation of Animals
Females are weaker and colder in nature, and we must look upon the female character as being a sort of natural deficiency.
-- Generation of Animals -
Siularuin,
I would be wary of taking incomplete or out of context quotes, and "hermeneutics". For example, his quotes on slavery cannot be understood with modern eyes.
Be that as it may, Aristotles shows in his first philosophy (the summit of his philosophical research) that men and women specifically have the same soul - ie the same substance - beyond any biological differences - or the same determination.-
Please don't assume that you are the only person who knows anything. You implied that Plato's opinion of women was demeaning whereas Aristotle was some kind of feminist! Aristotle's statements about women consistently place them on a lower standing to men, and on the same level as slaves. Don't misrepresent the facts by implying that Aristotle was an egalitarian when he clearly wasn't.
-
-
SiuailAruin,
I definitively do not think "I am the only person who knows anything". I have however delved into Aristoles first philosophy, the summit of his philosophical quest, and also understood the misintrepations along the way. This I can speak of.
Further, trying to extrapolate feminism to a society which existed 25 centuries ago is plain hermeuneutics. Thus, I did not imply that Aristotle was "a feminist".
On the other hand, you are most definitively Platonian, since you are reducing philosophical realism to your preconceived idea -
Aristotle
because he only told "Globe is Round" -
Yeah, I don't think too much stock can be put in the Ancients scientific research, who were using the tools at their disposal.
On the other hand, being is neither historic nor contemporary, blue nor red, to the left nor to the right: it is. -
Marktmarket posted this on his blog. The difference in "body language" between Plato and Aristotle is rather telling, imoho.
thecriticalthinker.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/plato-vs-aristotle/ -
Aristotle said:
"One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy."
What did Plato say that could match that? -
There is a good discussion of Aristotle versus Plato here:
polisciprof.blogspot.com/2006/08/plato-vs-aristotle.html
I wouldn't like to live in Plato's republic. -
WB,
Two of Platos uncles were politicians, and his grandfathers were "tyrants". His aristocratic background definitively seems to have played a role in his philosophical views, as he was fascinated by nobility, thus quality. In fact, he never managed to surpass quality and climb to substance. -
To be is to do - Plato
To do is to be - Descartes
Do be do be do - Sinatra-
Scooby Dooby Doo - Scooby Doo
-
Who are you?
-
LMAO, Jeunelle
-
-
jajaja Jeunelle
-
Socrates actually ... or better Diogenes.
But well if I had choose between them, I'd pick Plato over Aristotle. -
If it wasn´t for Plato, we would know nothing of Socrates (he left nothing on paper - or was that stone)
-
True, but is Plato to be trusted?
-
Also Xenophon.
-
The Platonic dialogues are not literal historical recordings, like a history textbook. Socrates in them is a fictional character based on the real individual.
Thus, the best interpretation is probably to assume what the character of Socrates says, etc. in Plato's dialogues, literally, is not historically accurate. With regards to Socrates' general views: it is difficult to determine what is Plato's views using Socrates as a mouthpiece, and what is Socrates' genuine views (if they are even present). I am not skilled in these types of literary inferences, so I cannot say anything else of value.
-
-
Overall:
Metaphysically: Aristotelian. In my view, Aristotle's view on forms is more accurate than Plato's theory. I am skeptical of the independent existence of forms. I am skeptical of 'forms' in general, and think that they are essentially a human construct used to interpret the physical universe, but I am less skeptical of Aristotelian forms.
That's all off the top of my head right now. I might think about this more and rejuvenate my memory on these philosophers, and respond if I remember anything else. -
Just to make it more clear for others, a form answers the question "what is it?" (eg a car) = intelligibility.
I think the error of the Platonians and the neoplatonians is to ignore abstraction which is at the origin of the idea in-itslef, ignoring the reality from which it proceeds, to the point of considering the idea in-itself as more real than the concrete realities.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
