Here is the entire thing. I'd appreciate any and all suggestions I can get, the only thing that is not quite yet complete is the conclusion. I've organized it all into sections so that it's easier for you guys to read. Thanks for reading. :)
NOTE: Some aspects of it aren't cleaned up, like the references aren't done properly yet so just ignore that part of it. (It's suppose to be formatted in APA Style but I haven't done that yet.)
NOTE2: Some terms you may not be aware of; ontology refers to what is it that makes something a human being. Socio-pscyhe is referring to how humans tend to act.
Here we go...
INTRODUCTION:
Plato the idealist and Aristotle the rationalist are responsible for producing some of the most influential documents in the history of mankind. They have both produced texts on human nature, and have formulated different positions on what human nature consists of. This document will provide a comparison of both philosophers view of the ontological, and socio-psychological nature of man and also seek to contrast the views accordingly.
BODY 1 : Plato's Ontology :
Plato never really gives an absolute clear account of his ontological view of human nature, that is to say, he never really says what a being qua being is. However he does suggest a dualistic metaphysical position which can be related to his ontological facet of human nature.
Plato first posits the Theory of Forms which basically states that there is another world in which everything of the physical world (earth) participates in and derives its essential identity from. These Forms are the cause of all that there is in the physical realm.
For Plato the soul and the body can exist independently of each other. He argues that the soul is immortal and the body is merely a nuisance; in fact, this independence is preferred for Plato's idea of a philosopher. In the Phaedo, Plato argues through Socrates that the body is a hindrance on the soul as the body is responsible for all the bodily sensations we experience and it is these exact sensations (such as hunger, thirst, etc.) that truly distract us from obtaining truth and intelligence.
Therefore in order for the philosopher to obtain the highest degree of truthfulness and eternal happiness, one must purify the soul from the body, and the only way this can be done is through death.
According to xxx translation of the Apology, Socrates suggests death is a wonderful cause for a philosopher for either it is one of two things: an eternal slumber, which would truly be a blessing or in death one can go onto another world (the world of Forms) where they can continue philosophizing (which is the ultimate blessing). For philosophizing is associated with obtaining truth and knowledge, and for Plato this is the ultimate good.
BODY 2 : Aristotle's Ontology :
Aristotle relies primarily on his doctrine of hylomorphism, which states that objects are a result of their matter and form. In Aristotle's De Amina, he defines matter as the stuff that constitutes it or the things that compose the objects parts in question. He defines form as being the essence of the object, that "stuff" which makes up the objects definition.
Aristotle typically uses artifacts to disgusish the two, for example: an axe may be composed of some iron, which has the potential capacity to chop material. Form may simply be defined as the shape of the object in this case, matter is compounded with the form. So iron would be the matter; the shape, arrangement, and the potential capacities of the axe would be its form. It is important to note that the matter and form are contingently related: it is logically possible for the matter to have a different form and the form to have a different matter (SOURCE).
Furthermore, within the concept of Form, is that of actuality, a chunk of iron can become that of an axe only when its taken on these axe-like properties. Within this notion of actuality lie two central concepts: that of knowledge possessed (having the knowledge of something), and knowledge exercised (exercising this knowledge).
According to Cohen (XXXX), Aristotle claims the soul is biological: Psyche is that in virtue of which a body is a living body. As put by Aristotle:
"... soul is the substance, in the sense of form, of a natural body potentially having life."
Thus translated, the soul being the form and body being the matter. In the De Amina, put simply, human psyche comprises the following capacities: to sense, to move, to nourish, and to be capable of thought. Thus, he distinguishes living things from nonliving things: living things, specifically have first and second actualization's, that is they are capable of possessing knowledge and exercising it. Nonliving things do not have these. For example a carpet cannot exercise knowledge, whatever happens to the carpet is passive.
BODY 3 : CONTRAST of Their Ontological Views
Plato seems to have the idea that human beings are composed of both a body and a separate entity that is a soul. Aristotle does something similar by systemically dividing humans up into form and matter using his doctrine of hylomorphism. The two philosophers differ however when it comes to the ontological and epistemological views of human nature.
Aristotle would reject Plato's Theory of Forms, for he simply argued it was the object in question that was composed of matter and form which provided us with the starting point for our investigation of form would be the Forms in the World of Form. Plato held contrary views to this, for him the starting point would've been the Forms in the World of Form. Aristotle also did not hold the same metaphysical idea when it came to Plato's idea of dualism (soul and body); he argued the soul is the form and the matter is the body but considered them a function of the physical person (or entity). Plato suggests that the soul is immortal but Aristotle holds a contrary view to this, when the body dies, so would the soul (SOURCE).
There appears also to be problems with Aristotles doctrine of hylomorphism. Previously Aristotle's notion of being alive was discussed; this preqeqiute for being alive appears to create problems within his hylomorphic doctrine in relation to the concept of soul and body. This notion Aristotle has seems to say that no human body is contingently ensouled, rather every body is ensouled but upon death it loses its soul and thus no longer exists. The main problem here is that this account of change seems to require that bits of matter are only contingently enformed: that is bronze is bronze because of the elements it is composed of and always will be composed of. It follows by this logic that bronze will still be bronze even after it is formed into a stature of Achilles and then melted down and reformed into a statue of Zeus. Now apply this same principle to that of Aristotles notion of body and soul: if bodies aren't bodies without a soul, and if the soul is the form then you cannot apply this logic to Aristotle's doctrine of hylomorphism (SOURCE). According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
" Matter, according to hylomorphism, is contingently enformed; so, bodies, treated by Aristotle as matter, should also be contingently enformed. If, however, bodies are only homonymously bodies when they have lost their souls, then bodies are necessarily enformed: bodies are necessarily actually alive. So, human bodies are both contingently and necessarily enformed. That seems an unhappy and rather immediate consequence. In fact, Aristotle seems to have contradicted himself."
BODY 4 : Plato's Socio-Pscyea
In Plato's Republic he outlines his primary socio-psychological facet of human nature; through outlining the ideal state in which all virtues are realized and upheld. The state would consist of three classes: the laymen, who are responsible for very simple tasks such as farming, these people would be considered very appetitive, they would have instinctive physical desires that they will always want to fulfill. The guardians, who are very passionate and spirited and thus are best suited to guard the state. And finally the philosopher kings, they are the most rational people of all, who are concerned with deciding what is truly best for the state and its inhabitants.
Plato argues the human soul interestingly enough is also composed of three parts, that is, the tripartite soul. The appetitive, which desires the things of sense (i.e. food, drink); the spirited, which strives for honor and passions, and seems to possess feeling for things strongly (i.e. a courageous solider); and the rational, which is in need of higher intellectual activity and stimulation. (SOURCE).
Plato suggests that most people belong to the appetitive class, the majority of people seem to be adapted for labours work such as tilling soil. A much smaller minority belongs to the spirited class and should be responsible for protection of the state. And the smallest class of all, are the rational people, that is, the philosopher kings--it is these people that will rule the state and handle its affairs.
Plato then suggests that the justice of the state can be achieved when all its citizens are actively participating in their respective roles. And therefore it necessarily follows, the justice of the soul consists of each part of the soul actively fulfilling its respective role. The temperance of a state consists in having all its citizens agree as to who is suppose to rule. And thus, correspondingly, temperance of the soul consists in having agreement of its parts, and understanding which part is to govern and take leadership at a specific time.
Plato provides us with some beautiful imagery of the tripartition of the soul in his Phaedrus. He compares the three aspects of soul to that of a chariot being powered by a black and white horse. The white horse would be representative of everything courageous, honorable, respectable, etc. while the black horse would be the complete opposite of the spectrum, representing greed, lust, envy, etc.. Plato says these horses would be linked to the spirited and appetitive parts of the soul, respectively. While the charioteer of the chariot would be the rational part of the soul responsible for keeping the horses in check when one begins to overpower another. Thus Plato concludes that a human being is just when the chariot is in balance and riding smoothing, that is when all aspects of soul are functioning in accord.
BODY 5 : Aristotles Socio-Pscyhe
Aristotle's socio-psychological facet of human nature seems to be grounded in functionalism. According to (NICEOMANETHIC), all human activities are designed to achieve some good, happiness being the greatest good of all. The definition of happiness is tied to that of the soul, happiness appears to be activity of the soul in accordance with complete virtue throughout life. Aristotle recognizes however, that not all men hold the same definition of happiness; for some it is purely pleasure, and others view it as having honor. For Aristotle, virtues were things that were practiced through consciously becoming aware of these concepts and integrating them into positive self habits. For example, if one were to sit down at dinner and one is aware they are a gluttonous person then one should aim to under eat a bit, and chances are this will lead one to eating moderately, which is the "right action". (ETHICX) So with this in mind, it must follow that happiness can thus be practiced, and since it can be practiced it must follow that it is an activity or a series of activities. The activity of happiness Aristotle would consider to be the best activity, and therefore it can be drawn that the best activity would follow from the best part of man: that which is capable of thinking.
From this Aristotle draws the conclusion that the life of contemplation would be the happiest and most divine life of all:
"For it is the most continuous and most self-sufficient and self-sufficiency belongs to happiness."
Therefore it can be concluded that the more one contemplates, or partakes in this activity, the closer one becomes to "divine".
In order to develop this ability to act rightly however, one must become aware of the action and deliberately choose to act this way with certainty and firmness. Through the practice of deliberately choosing to act rightly one can gradually acquire whatever it is they're acting towards. For example Aristotle believed virtues such as generosity (the giving and taking of property), high-mindedness (with regards to being worthy of honor), good temper (controlling your anger) could all be acquired in this manner.
BODY 6 : CONTRAST
Aristotle and Plato both seem to be elitists, they seem to hold the notion that people aren't created equally. Plato notes towards the tripartite soul and gives the distinction of how people tend to act according to that class system while Aristotle held the notion that if he seen someone he'd be able to tell whether or not they're inferior beings or not based on their appearance and how they acted (i.e. muscular men being suited for labor) (SOURCE).
The two philosophers also appear to have different notions of virtue and how it relates to happiness. For Plato morality would be a necessary and sufficient condition for being happy, Aristotle would've rejected this notion and said its only a necessary condition but not sufficient. In order to be fully happy one must have both internal and external goodness, that is wealth, health, friends, etc..
CONCLUSION :
Plato and Aristotle seem to possess fundamentally similar views of human nature with different alternations to their own philosophizes respectively.
NOTE: Some aspects of it aren't cleaned up, like the references aren't done properly yet so just ignore that part of it. (It's suppose to be formatted in APA Style but I haven't done that yet.)
NOTE2: Some terms you may not be aware of; ontology refers to what is it that makes something a human being. Socio-pscyhe is referring to how humans tend to act.
Here we go...
INTRODUCTION:
Plato the idealist and Aristotle the rationalist are responsible for producing some of the most influential documents in the history of mankind. They have both produced texts on human nature, and have formulated different positions on what human nature consists of. This document will provide a comparison of both philosophers view of the ontological, and socio-psychological nature of man and also seek to contrast the views accordingly.
BODY 1 : Plato's Ontology :
Plato never really gives an absolute clear account of his ontological view of human nature, that is to say, he never really says what a being qua being is. However he does suggest a dualistic metaphysical position which can be related to his ontological facet of human nature.
Plato first posits the Theory of Forms which basically states that there is another world in which everything of the physical world (earth) participates in and derives its essential identity from. These Forms are the cause of all that there is in the physical realm.
For Plato the soul and the body can exist independently of each other. He argues that the soul is immortal and the body is merely a nuisance; in fact, this independence is preferred for Plato's idea of a philosopher. In the Phaedo, Plato argues through Socrates that the body is a hindrance on the soul as the body is responsible for all the bodily sensations we experience and it is these exact sensations (such as hunger, thirst, etc.) that truly distract us from obtaining truth and intelligence.
Therefore in order for the philosopher to obtain the highest degree of truthfulness and eternal happiness, one must purify the soul from the body, and the only way this can be done is through death.
According to xxx translation of the Apology, Socrates suggests death is a wonderful cause for a philosopher for either it is one of two things: an eternal slumber, which would truly be a blessing or in death one can go onto another world (the world of Forms) where they can continue philosophizing (which is the ultimate blessing). For philosophizing is associated with obtaining truth and knowledge, and for Plato this is the ultimate good.
BODY 2 : Aristotle's Ontology :
Aristotle relies primarily on his doctrine of hylomorphism, which states that objects are a result of their matter and form. In Aristotle's De Amina, he defines matter as the stuff that constitutes it or the things that compose the objects parts in question. He defines form as being the essence of the object, that "stuff" which makes up the objects definition.
Aristotle typically uses artifacts to disgusish the two, for example: an axe may be composed of some iron, which has the potential capacity to chop material. Form may simply be defined as the shape of the object in this case, matter is compounded with the form. So iron would be the matter; the shape, arrangement, and the potential capacities of the axe would be its form. It is important to note that the matter and form are contingently related: it is logically possible for the matter to have a different form and the form to have a different matter (SOURCE).
Furthermore, within the concept of Form, is that of actuality, a chunk of iron can become that of an axe only when its taken on these axe-like properties. Within this notion of actuality lie two central concepts: that of knowledge possessed (having the knowledge of something), and knowledge exercised (exercising this knowledge).
According to Cohen (XXXX), Aristotle claims the soul is biological: Psyche is that in virtue of which a body is a living body. As put by Aristotle:
"... soul is the substance, in the sense of form, of a natural body potentially having life."
Thus translated, the soul being the form and body being the matter. In the De Amina, put simply, human psyche comprises the following capacities: to sense, to move, to nourish, and to be capable of thought. Thus, he distinguishes living things from nonliving things: living things, specifically have first and second actualization's, that is they are capable of possessing knowledge and exercising it. Nonliving things do not have these. For example a carpet cannot exercise knowledge, whatever happens to the carpet is passive.
BODY 3 : CONTRAST of Their Ontological Views
Plato seems to have the idea that human beings are composed of both a body and a separate entity that is a soul. Aristotle does something similar by systemically dividing humans up into form and matter using his doctrine of hylomorphism. The two philosophers differ however when it comes to the ontological and epistemological views of human nature.
Aristotle would reject Plato's Theory of Forms, for he simply argued it was the object in question that was composed of matter and form which provided us with the starting point for our investigation of form would be the Forms in the World of Form. Plato held contrary views to this, for him the starting point would've been the Forms in the World of Form. Aristotle also did not hold the same metaphysical idea when it came to Plato's idea of dualism (soul and body); he argued the soul is the form and the matter is the body but considered them a function of the physical person (or entity). Plato suggests that the soul is immortal but Aristotle holds a contrary view to this, when the body dies, so would the soul (SOURCE).
There appears also to be problems with Aristotles doctrine of hylomorphism. Previously Aristotle's notion of being alive was discussed; this preqeqiute for being alive appears to create problems within his hylomorphic doctrine in relation to the concept of soul and body. This notion Aristotle has seems to say that no human body is contingently ensouled, rather every body is ensouled but upon death it loses its soul and thus no longer exists. The main problem here is that this account of change seems to require that bits of matter are only contingently enformed: that is bronze is bronze because of the elements it is composed of and always will be composed of. It follows by this logic that bronze will still be bronze even after it is formed into a stature of Achilles and then melted down and reformed into a statue of Zeus. Now apply this same principle to that of Aristotles notion of body and soul: if bodies aren't bodies without a soul, and if the soul is the form then you cannot apply this logic to Aristotle's doctrine of hylomorphism (SOURCE). According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
" Matter, according to hylomorphism, is contingently enformed; so, bodies, treated by Aristotle as matter, should also be contingently enformed. If, however, bodies are only homonymously bodies when they have lost their souls, then bodies are necessarily enformed: bodies are necessarily actually alive. So, human bodies are both contingently and necessarily enformed. That seems an unhappy and rather immediate consequence. In fact, Aristotle seems to have contradicted himself."
BODY 4 : Plato's Socio-Pscyea
In Plato's Republic he outlines his primary socio-psychological facet of human nature; through outlining the ideal state in which all virtues are realized and upheld. The state would consist of three classes: the laymen, who are responsible for very simple tasks such as farming, these people would be considered very appetitive, they would have instinctive physical desires that they will always want to fulfill. The guardians, who are very passionate and spirited and thus are best suited to guard the state. And finally the philosopher kings, they are the most rational people of all, who are concerned with deciding what is truly best for the state and its inhabitants.
Plato argues the human soul interestingly enough is also composed of three parts, that is, the tripartite soul. The appetitive, which desires the things of sense (i.e. food, drink); the spirited, which strives for honor and passions, and seems to possess feeling for things strongly (i.e. a courageous solider); and the rational, which is in need of higher intellectual activity and stimulation. (SOURCE).
Plato suggests that most people belong to the appetitive class, the majority of people seem to be adapted for labours work such as tilling soil. A much smaller minority belongs to the spirited class and should be responsible for protection of the state. And the smallest class of all, are the rational people, that is, the philosopher kings--it is these people that will rule the state and handle its affairs.
Plato then suggests that the justice of the state can be achieved when all its citizens are actively participating in their respective roles. And therefore it necessarily follows, the justice of the soul consists of each part of the soul actively fulfilling its respective role. The temperance of a state consists in having all its citizens agree as to who is suppose to rule. And thus, correspondingly, temperance of the soul consists in having agreement of its parts, and understanding which part is to govern and take leadership at a specific time.
Plato provides us with some beautiful imagery of the tripartition of the soul in his Phaedrus. He compares the three aspects of soul to that of a chariot being powered by a black and white horse. The white horse would be representative of everything courageous, honorable, respectable, etc. while the black horse would be the complete opposite of the spectrum, representing greed, lust, envy, etc.. Plato says these horses would be linked to the spirited and appetitive parts of the soul, respectively. While the charioteer of the chariot would be the rational part of the soul responsible for keeping the horses in check when one begins to overpower another. Thus Plato concludes that a human being is just when the chariot is in balance and riding smoothing, that is when all aspects of soul are functioning in accord.
BODY 5 : Aristotles Socio-Pscyhe
Aristotle's socio-psychological facet of human nature seems to be grounded in functionalism. According to (NICEOMANETHIC), all human activities are designed to achieve some good, happiness being the greatest good of all. The definition of happiness is tied to that of the soul, happiness appears to be activity of the soul in accordance with complete virtue throughout life. Aristotle recognizes however, that not all men hold the same definition of happiness; for some it is purely pleasure, and others view it as having honor. For Aristotle, virtues were things that were practiced through consciously becoming aware of these concepts and integrating them into positive self habits. For example, if one were to sit down at dinner and one is aware they are a gluttonous person then one should aim to under eat a bit, and chances are this will lead one to eating moderately, which is the "right action". (ETHICX) So with this in mind, it must follow that happiness can thus be practiced, and since it can be practiced it must follow that it is an activity or a series of activities. The activity of happiness Aristotle would consider to be the best activity, and therefore it can be drawn that the best activity would follow from the best part of man: that which is capable of thinking.
From this Aristotle draws the conclusion that the life of contemplation would be the happiest and most divine life of all:
"For it is the most continuous and most self-sufficient and self-sufficiency belongs to happiness."
Therefore it can be concluded that the more one contemplates, or partakes in this activity, the closer one becomes to "divine".
In order to develop this ability to act rightly however, one must become aware of the action and deliberately choose to act this way with certainty and firmness. Through the practice of deliberately choosing to act rightly one can gradually acquire whatever it is they're acting towards. For example Aristotle believed virtues such as generosity (the giving and taking of property), high-mindedness (with regards to being worthy of honor), good temper (controlling your anger) could all be acquired in this manner.
BODY 6 : CONTRAST
Aristotle and Plato both seem to be elitists, they seem to hold the notion that people aren't created equally. Plato notes towards the tripartite soul and gives the distinction of how people tend to act according to that class system while Aristotle held the notion that if he seen someone he'd be able to tell whether or not they're inferior beings or not based on their appearance and how they acted (i.e. muscular men being suited for labor) (SOURCE).
The two philosophers also appear to have different notions of virtue and how it relates to happiness. For Plato morality would be a necessary and sufficient condition for being happy, Aristotle would've rejected this notion and said its only a necessary condition but not sufficient. In order to be fully happy one must have both internal and external goodness, that is wealth, health, friends, etc..
CONCLUSION :
Plato and Aristotle seem to possess fundamentally similar views of human nature with different alternations to their own philosophizes respectively.
