Essay Example on Aristotle vs. Plato: Comparing Views on Knowledge

Introduction

The perspectives of Plato and Aristotle will be presented regarding their views on knowledge. The study of knowledge is something philosophers have been doing from the time philosophy subject was coined. Their viewpoints have various similarities and differences concerning epistemology. In his perspectives, Plato becomes highly discouraged by both the 'mob' and the 'elite'. The mob signified by the jury at Socrates' trial, was illogical and unsafe; it was influenced by doctrinaire appeals to emotion, not by reason (Comford, 2013). The concerns raised in this paper are crucial because they ask questions like; what makes up knowledge and what kind of things can we know? After the summary of Plato and Aristotle theories and their comparison, the paper will examine Rene Descartes views on the philosophers' theories. The paper will attempt to evaluate whether Rene Descartes was effective in his effort to explain about reason about knowledge.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Plato's Theory of Knowledge

Plato's epistemology supports that knowledge of Platonic Ideas is inborn, such that learning is the development of ideas hidden deep in the soul. Plato inferred that most individuals are unfit by training and capability to make the hard and essential resolution that would lead to an impartial society. The normal person has no self-restraint and understanding. As Plato viewed things, many individuals display sentimental reactions grounded on yearnings and emotion instead of logical deliberation coming from an objective viewpoint of what is sincerely good for the individual society. Events like the revolt of the Thirty, Socrates's death and obscure abuses prompted Plato to deduce that a crooked state generates unethical citizens. He, therefore, tried to coin a theory of knowledge that could disprove obscure skepticism and moral relativism. Plato thought that if he could recognize and express the variation between simple view and real knowledge, it would then be logical to recognize the configuration of a perfect grounded on knowledge and truth instead of the simple presence of truth and individual impulse. The allegory of the cave is a case of Plato's intended explanation of the truth and private whim. The convicts (incapable of turning their heads) would not understand anything else apart from their shadows and think that this was the reality (Comford, 2013).

The allegory is a crucial advancement to the narrative because it illustrates to us that what we think to be real from birth is falsely founded on our flawed translations of reality and goodness. Plato illustrates another of his preferred notions; that teaching is not a procedure of putting insight into empty thoughts, but of making individuals understand that which they now know. The idea that truth is in some way entrenched in our thoughts was also strongly influential for numerous centuries. In Plato's realm, realism is not considered via the minds, but instead comprehensible truths of realism in the designs of notions and figures, contrary to the visible realm. In his Allegory of the Cave, Plato defines the physical realm as a 'gloomy place' in which people can only view the object via the minds. He denoted these objects as wonders or weak designs forms of realism. Therefore, the physical domain is not a realm where people can acquire insight into true authenticity. Plato defines the process of obtaining knowledge from dark to the light (Scott, 1995). In this voyage, individuals can observe the spirit of truth, or in other terms, they were capable of gaining an understanding of what is true.

Aristotle's Theory of Knowledge

Aristotle was focused on the variations between ancient and contemporary knowledge and agreed that they should not blind humans to the facts that in regards to epistemological both ancients and moderns shared a comprehensive range of assumptions about the forms of knowledge. Aristotle coined the topic of logic as a discipline, gave it its fundamental terminology and set its agenda of concerns. He also managed to state almost every aspect worth noting about the topic that was said before the last hundred years. Aristotle first opined the central idea that knowledge is illustrated in 'suggestions' or 'statements' with simple subject-predicate form and that this represents the metaphysical connection between what he termed 'beings' but which has conventionally been interpreted as 'objects' and their 'properties; or 'values'. Actually, from the perspective of much modern epistemology, this has renounced the 'contemporary' objective of inevitability; Aristotle seems to have comprehended the pertinent nature of knowledge attainment (Bronstein, 2015).

Aristotle grounded his philosophical inferences on inspection of certain, actual things, not on the exceptional scrutiny of mathematical laws or actual notions. Aristotle brings to full maturity a second key strategy to the study of the good life; gathering real information and utilizing accurate data to make this a better world. Naturalism is the conviction that realism comprises the natural universe and that the universe is methodical. Every aspect adheres to the reliable and discoverable laws of nature and can be defied in facets of fundamental laws. Aristotle has a wide range of perspectives from nature to ethics and has an ingrained view of mathematics. He offers me the imprint that the laws of nature are the jurisdictions in which people live and their meaning of life rotates around this frontier.

Aristotle understood with flawless lucidity that the logician's syllogistic illustration of his inference can offer knowledge only if it is presumed accurately from actual foundations. Those principles could be understood to be real if they were assumed from 'greater' foundations which were known to be factual. Aristotle also infers that there can exist knowledge by assumption only if there is the insight of such fundamental truths by some other approaches than inference. Just like Plato, he concludes that this knowledge perceives the object as the universal configuration or principle generic in a certain key substance. Aristotle describes in full concept the pursuit of the good life; trying to obtain facts without unfairness and then utilizing that information to make this a better universe. Aristotle stands alone as a model of the philosophical naturalist (Keifer, 2007). Essentially, naturalism is the conviction that realism comprises the natural world where discoverable laws of nature are imminent.

Compare and Contrast the Views of Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle agrees with Plato that knowledge comprises the true aspects and that this truth is expected to be vindicated in a way which illustrates that it must be factual. Plato believed that even though people cannot attain true knowledge of the configurations of the world, they do have an undistinguished comprehension of them. For instance, when people use the word 'cat' to pronounce a certain animal they see, they are not just categorizing it, they are referring to some certain features that it shares with other cats. They all share the form of a cat. Besides, Plato alleged that, in the realm of the forms, there exists an ideal cat, created by God. The cats that people see in the experiential world are defective copies of this ideal cat. Plato had a conviction that the forms were organized in a pyramid. The most crucial form is the form of the good. A proper case is highlighted by the 'allegory of the cave' where the good illumines other forms.

Aristotle's perspective on how knowledge is attained and where it can be acquired is in some way different. According to Aristotle, the 'form' of something is what is imminent in the object itself, it fails to signify something else. The outline of an object is its structure and its features; it can often be viewed by the mind. Aristotle utilized the phrase 'substance' to show the material of which things are structured. Aristotle understood that the cause of something can be tracked back, illustrating multiple motives for their existence and he inferred that the clarification of things could be viewed in four various aspects. Therefore, Aristotle rejected Plato's theory of forms but not the idea of the form itself.

Both Plato and Aristotle grounded their theories on four extensively approved convictions. They accepted that knowledge must be of what is factual and the world encountered through the minds is what is real. They also accepted that knowledge must be of what is immobile and static and the world encountered through the minds is not immobile and unchanging. Their similarities resulted in a skeptic point of view which both philosophers desired to target, as both agreed knowledge is potential. To surpass this predominant contradiction in the contention, it became important that each philosopher selected a point to discount and proved to be pointless. Plato chose to reject the allegation that the world encountered through the mind is what is real while Aristotle overruled the claim that knowledge must be immobile and static.

Rene Descartes

Descartes came two thousand years after Aristotle but became quite trendy to scorn him. Descartes' ideas of geometry, a deductive framework of suggestions proved to follow with accuracy from indubitable axioms was not his creation, but were ideas already intended in Aristotle's Organon, and is implied in Plato's 'Divided Line' concept of 'dianoia'. Descartes discourse on Method and Meditations comprise his crucial philosophical theories. With a focus to prolong a mathematical approach to all aspects of human knowledge, Descartes rejected the authoritarian frameworks of the scholastic philosophers and started with universal doubt. Thus, the doubter must be in existence. This is the seed of his prominent claim Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, thus I am existing). In regards to this certainty Descartes advanced knowledge, stage by stage, to confess the existence of God (as the original cause) and the realism of the physical realm, which he thought to be mechanistic and wholly separated from the senses; the only link between the two is the intervention of God (Cunning, 2010).

Descartes made a lot of contributions to the theory of knowledge is the approach; he suggested for finding the unquestionable foundational truths. He suggested discarding as false any of his contemporary convictions that left any room for logical doubt. In case he could discover any beliefs which survived this most severe trial, then he would have the foundation he was pursuing. In his initial meditation, Descartes casts uncertainty on the previous basis of knowledge and everything he has assumed or learned. He noted, "but the reason now convinces me that I should deny approval no less prudently from views that are not fully accurate and indubitable than I would from those that are untrue." To assess and determine what is true he divides the basis of knowledge into three sources; the mind, realism, and setting. Descartes's standard appears to be just a general application of a perfectly normal, rational standard for knowledge. There are multiple concerns raised by Descartes that remain controversial in the theory of knowledge. The first concern is whether and how skepticism might be disproven (Cunning, 2010). No philosopher takes Descartes' approach any more although other approaches have been advanced.

Conclusion

The paper has taken a philosophical approach to knowledge as discussed by Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes. Plato's idea of knowledge approves that Platonic Ideas are generic. Plato concluded that many people are not suitable for training and their ability to make hard and basic decisions would result in an objective society. Plato's most prominent illustration of knowledge is the allegory of the cave. On the other ha...