Plato Versus Aristotle Essay

Plato versus Aristotle

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very

cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the

higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each

philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess

knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic

various times: for example, the similes 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 are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of

ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance

is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less

metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.

Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms

basically states that there 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 see the forms, they only 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 will achieve understanding of the

forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to be

taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the

form of the good. Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest

form--form of the good--in order to rule. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will 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 certainly is at the core

of his discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers?'

There are many layers to the answer of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without 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 creation of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice. This does

not mean, though, that there 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 beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has

a natural 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 people--a state--satisfies the needs 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. For this reason, certain rules have 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. Plato's The Republic is not an

explication of laws of the people. It is a separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries, Commoners--that makes the most

of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of the community. The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three

classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each individual.

The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political

roles 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 partake in politics because they are not mentally able. In other 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 responsibility the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of

the military, police, and executive duties. Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended

for the good of the state. To ensure that public good continues to be foremost on each Ruler's 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, through a myth, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reassures

that there won't be any disruption in the harmony of the state.

Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the polis, Aristotle's The Politics's sole

function is to define itself--define 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. His 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 inferior 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. Plato's 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 Plato's, is a city with a large middle class which promotes stability and balances the conflicting

claims of the poor and the rich. Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims.

Because he is aware 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 permissible because

of the strong involvement of the citizens in government; it is what one would call a "true democracy." Overall, a spirit of moderation


The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is difficult to find specific instances

where either philosophy is applied. This may be a result of the fact that today's political philosophy differs from both philosopher's. While

Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution includes a bill of rights that

guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for today's 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 doubting

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 today's society involves the topic of slavery. Aristotle argues for the

naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotesque 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 classes--for 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.

Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices. The philosophers are

very community oriented while we value the individual. Besides differing with today's standards, each philosopher is in his own way

distinct. Plato is very attracted to metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both perspective views are and will

continue to puzzle students for years to come.

Aristotle vs. Plato Essay

1408 Words6 Pages

Aristotle vs. Plato

Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato’s definition of virtue. What does this definition really mean though? Plato and Aristotle both had their own unique arguments devoted to the topic at hand, and their own ways of describing what virtue really is. Defining virtue may seem to be an easy taste, but to truly understand the arguments behind the definition can prove to be very challenging.

Before discussing virtue, the sole must first be considered. There are three types of soul, according to Aristotle. The three types form a hierarchy. As the hierarchy increases, each form includes the one below. The first level is called vegetable, which is…show more content…

Wealth causes people to ask the question “How much is too much?” Aristotle believed a person could have too much wealth. He believes it is more important to buy leisure time than inanimate objects. Too much wealth leads a person away from happiness according to Aristotle. Honor is something some people have great amounts of, while others have very little. It is good to be honored and respected in life. Some people, such as political leaders and even actors and actresses are honored more than others. Being overly honored can also cause people to be unhappy since most honored people have people who despise and resent them. Aristotle came to the conclusion that it is far better to be honorable than honored. This brings up the final quality of happiness, EXCELLENCE. This quality is key for human’s pursuit of happiness. Aristotle believes in personal happiness and when defining virtue itself, he used the word “excellence.”

When talking about happiness and goodness, there must be an important quality present. According to Aristotle, people need to practice balance and moderation in their every day lives. Achieving this middle ground, or mean, translates into being virtuous in Aristotle’s mind. If virtue is present, so is its opposite vise. For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the

Show More

0 thoughts on “Plato Versus Aristotle Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *