The Contrast Painted

Jordan Wolfe
03/09/2009
Philosophy

The Contrast Painted.
Plato vs. Aristotle
The teacher and the student, Plato and Aristotle both widely respected thinkers with radically different thoughts. Not everyone was satisfied with Plato's universal truth and higher reality that he found in the thought of a thing rather than its form. Aristotle was one of those that found himself not completely satisfied with the thoughts of his mentor. In his works he stands in almost complete contrast with the thoughts Plato laid out. This is Idealism vs Realism, Universal against individual, and form as opposed to the concept of that form.
Plato was an idealist that stressed the power of unchanging truths that he called universals. He painted his ideas in the allegory of the cave where he displays the power of shadows and of partial truth. His question was that if individuals are only exposed to the shadows projected on the wall then will they not consider those shadows to be reality? He argues that the world in which we live is only shadows and images of the real world. The more real world is one that is beyond what we can deductively or inductively understand with our senses and must be understood and applied through intellect and ideas.
Now we have Plato's student Aristotle who would say, “Wait just one stinkin moment! Lets use logic to study the things we see and then build off of them some more probable conclusions!” Aristotle was a realist and he teaches that reason is divine. He would say we should not go straight to the ideas that are untouchable but rather to what we know and then by understanding the shadows project probable conclusions. His political belief also stands in the face of Plato's ideals in that he believed the state to be the higher priority than the family. That individuals cannot be complete in who they are but rather are made whole by fulfilling they're part in society. He would say that slaves made by capture in war are totally okay because those that lose the war are inferior to the winners and will actually do better being ruled by their superiors.
Plato's political views are heavy in idealism which Aristotle criticized as being to far from this reality. Mr. P wanted a utopia and wrote about concepts of community even to the degree of communal ownership of wives. Aristotle although placing the state ahead of the family disagreed with abolishing he family because he said the state is made up of families. Communal ownership he argued would mean no private property and with out property the management of households and families is lost.
Each of these thinkers wanted to find universals but the arguments come when we put at odds their different vehicles for reaching them. Aristotle believes that through examination of particulars or what he called the “essence” of things we can reach the universals. Plato believed that universal existed outside of the particulars and extended further than Aristotle's natural philosophy. This is where the argument gets interesting in that you can begin looking into the concepts of love, hope, and faith. In plugging these concepts into their vehicles we see that it is at best it is hard to piece together particulars about them and at worst it is impossible. Love goes beyond the logic of Aristotle and though he dominated thinking for thousands of years on many topics I think I would have to give at least a piece of the battle on love as a victory to Plato.
Both of these incredible thinkers create a beautiful tension upon which we can stand and look into our lives, our society, and our world and question what is true and how the truth is applied. I believe that both of them would agree that fearless questioning and study of life, love, and all that goes with it is not only an honorable pursuit but a life giving one.