Compare and Contrast Aristotle and Plato

Plato & Aristotle

The author of this brief report has been asked to compare and contrast the theories of knowledge, otherwise known as epistemology, that are present in the works of Plato and Aristotle. The works of Plato that will be covered include Divided Line, the Allegory of the Cave and the Sun. When it comes to Aristotle, the items that will be covered include the ten categories and the significance of substance. The relevant text in question will be Classics of Philosophy as authored by Pojman and Vaughn. While there are some strong similarities between the works and authors cited above, there are also some distinct differences between them.

When it comes to the Divided Line, Plato is writing out a dialog that occurs between Glaucon and Socrates. It is important to note that this work immediately follows the Analogy of the Sun and the Analogy of the Cave immediately follows this work. The main point and thrust of the work is that Socrates is asking Glaucon to envision a line that separates the visible and the invisible. Put another way, he is asked to look at the visible world and the intelligible world. When it comes to the latter, it can only be hypothetical and in theory due to the invisible nature of it. Of course, the Allegory of the Cave represents a story where people are facing a blank wall and this is what leads to their perceived reality. He then makes clear that a philosopher is someone who has been freed from this slow hell. The analogy of the sun is about the concept of not being able to clearly and concisely defining what goodness happens to be. It is further remarked within the Sun story that goodness can actually make objects visible and perceivable, not to mention being known in the first place (Pojman & Vaughn, 2011).

The work of Aristotle is similar yet it is different at the same time. When it comes to Substance, there are clear parallels and similarities that exist with Plato. Indeed, Substance focuses on precisely that, what makes things exist and be in terms of reality, whether they are "illegal" or whether they are good. There is also reference to what makes exist and "be" in this world. Aristotle branches off a bit by breaking down what makes up the existence of any given being. Just two of those classifications include a particular object and the kind of object that is in question. Just one of the revelations to be had in this work is that if one item in a certain classification does not exist, then the same could be said for any other sort of similar object. For example, if an ash tree does not exist, then an elm tree could not really exist either. The Categories work of Aristotle is much of the same in that it has a heavy focus on what things exist, how they exist, how they are perceived and how they could or should be classified (Pojman & Vaughn, 2011).

While it may seem basic and silly to consider such things, what makes things exist matters a great deal. Indeed, there is the realm of what is supposedly real and quantifiable. There are other things that might seem real like dreams and visions that are not real to begin with and are only in the mind of the perceiver. On the other hand, there are things that are not visible or real at all but that surely exist on some level. Indeed, both Plato and Aristotle make the point that there are things that could exist and they do not lack existence just because we do not notice them or have the ability to see them. Both of the men make the point that just because something is not acknowledged or spoke of does not mean that they do not exist nor does it mean that they are not classifiable, were they to be visible (Pojman & Vaughn, 2011).

Conclusion

As noted before, there is surely some concern or confusion about how deep down the proverbial rabbit hole that Plato and Aristotle happen to go. However, it is important to realize and understand that their arguments and concerns have merit, both then and now. It remains to be seen just how elucidating and illuminating these open questions are and there will surely be more figured out and revealed as time goes on and as humans learn more about their perceptions and the world, both seen and unseen, around them.

References

Pojman, L. & Vaughn, L. (2011). Classics of philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.