Plato vs. Aristotle Essay

Plato and Aristotle, 2 philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphaels School of capital of Greece (1510-11 Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher(prenominal)(prenominal) painss and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the cancel sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of for each one philosopher becomes an inseparable factor. It is not coincidental that Plato extracts in The Republic that Philosopher rules who possess be intimateledge of the heavy should be the g everyplacenors in a city state.His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic variant clock times for example, the parables 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 ar much(prenominal) theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, h olds the view that politics is the art of regnant and being control in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a room of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he regards it is the necessary element to creating a stable brass.His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, so far he is far from modern. Platos thought of what politics and politics should be is a direct result of his sentiment in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basic wholey states that in that respect 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 notice the forms, they completely 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 pull up stakes pass unde rstanding of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition atomic number 18 knowledge lovers, ar the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This conceit has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they be the only ones who hold the form of the pricy. Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest formform of the goodin rewrite to rule.The reasoning is if you know the good, then you depart 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 for sure is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, Why do you ask ideal states which will seduce philosophers as rulers? There are many layers to the answer of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal withou t 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 invention of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal state is needed is to assure the existence of Justice. This does not mean, though, that in that location 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 beinge beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2.each psyche has a graphic 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 peoplea statesatisfies the ask 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. F or this reason, certain rules deport 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.Platos The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people. It is a time interval of power amongst one-third classesRulers, Auxiliaries, Commonersthat makes the most of each persons natural abilities and strives for the good of the community. The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the trio classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each mortal. The three classes are a product of polar aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political graphic symbols 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 bear upon in politics because they are not mentally able. In round o ther words, they do not understand the concept of the forms. Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them. Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental tariff the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties. reigning and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state. To agree that public good continues to be foremost on each Rulers agenda, the Rulers live in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private property. The separation of classes is understood by everybody Self-interest, which could be a negative factor in the scheme of things, is eliminated through a very moral oriented education system. All these provisions are generated to maintain unity of the state.The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is the Foundation myth of the metals. By making the people believe, thr ough a myth, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reassures that there wont be any disruption in the harmony of the state. Whereas Platos The Republic is a text whose goal is to subtend Justice and in doing so uses the polis, Aristotles The Politicss sole function is to define itselfdefine politics. Aristotle begins his text by answering the question Why does the state exist? His answer is that the state is the culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman (pair), which have a family and form a household households unite and form villages villages unite and form the state. This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals. Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in the escalating order of unions among people. In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on breaking down society.H is argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are naturally defined. For example, he devotes a lot of time to an explanation of the naturalness of slaves and their role in society. Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so. His view is that women are insufficient to men in all senses. Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is purely political. Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing an active role in political life.Platos reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the intricacies of higher knowledge on the good. Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political issue. He believes that only those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state. For this reason, he excludes workers as citizens because they would not have the required time to openly participate in politicking. The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Platos, is a city with a large middle class which promotes stability and balances the distant claims of the poor and the rich.Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims. Because he is assured that human interest is an inextricable entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to the good of the polis. This system provides for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should receive more. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the mixed social system allows. This is tolerable because of the strong involvement of the citizens in government it is what one would call a true democracy. Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails. The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet straight off it is difficult to find specific instances where both philosophy is applied. This may be a result of th e fact that nowadayss political philosophy differs from both philosophers. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, todays constitution includes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for todays citizens.Going back in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy in the ratification of the constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. When the drafters promised that as soon as the constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights would be added, the disbelieving states proceeded to ratify it. According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not improve the good of the community. Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and todays society involves the topic of slavery.Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotes que for quite some time. In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female population by Aristotle. Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-species. While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it is a well accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks.Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly contains some of their influences in a general sense. For example, today it is believed that certain people are born with certain capacities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the different intelligence levels among people, we have different classesfor example advanced, intermediate, and beginners. In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the highest potential. This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human beings. Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in certain capacity levels to complete tasks. Platos and Aristotles philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices. The philosophers are very community oriented while we pass judgment the individual. Besides differing with todays standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct. Plato is very attracted to metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both linear perspective views are and will continue to puzzle students for years to come.