The philosopher kings must have as their object true knowledge and must know math, essences, and ultimately the most important essence, the form of the good, in order to know whether justice is truly good and truly rule for the benefit of the polis.
Republic, b. Once the philosophers know all of the forms and everything that exists eternally, they actually have to be forced to be kings and rule because after they discover the eternal forms they naturally become uninterested in the material world and petty worldly things. Knowledge drives the philosopher away from ruling because it involves seemingly petty issues and unenlightened people; however, education from the state, virtue, and fear of being ruled by someone worse pulls forces the philosopher into ruling.
The concept of specialization dictates political involvement because it forces politics to become a skill that must be mastered, like house building, a skill that requires a specific type of person naturally suited for that task. If Plato accepted the notion that every citizen has the capability to participate in politics then the entire system of specialization would crumble.
If every person can be a politician, why would not every person be capable of becoming a guardian of a farmer? Once the line is crossed, a precedent is established that allows all other lines to be crossed.
The notion that every citizen can participate in judging laws also assumes that every citizen knows the essence of justice, because every law in the ideal state is a reflection of that essence. In conclusion, Plato's ideal state is constructed from the deeper non-realistic perspective while Aristotle comes to his conclusions regarding politics and states through observation of existing states and forms of government. Plato is forced to reject claims made by Aristotle stating that all states are natural and all citizens are capable of participating in politics.
Plato rejects these claims in order to preserve the fundamental basis on which his ideal state is constructed such as the concept of specialization and the closely connected definitions of justice and nature. Z V Zach von Naumann Author. PDF version for only 0. Add to cart. Final Paper In Politics by Aristotle and Republic by Plato, two different conceptions of the state, justice, and political participation present themselves.
Sign in to write a comment. Read the ebook. The Right to Equality and Non-Discrim Positive Despotism: An Account of Ari John Dryden and his drama concept on About Plato's ideas regarding pol However, this can be only achieved when the whole society each individual in the society fulfils his person and adopts virtuosity, self-control, and love for God.
He further believed that soul was the guide to body and mind, comparing it to a chariot driven by two horses at a time. He also divided the soul into emotion, desire, and reason and stated that true knowledge is acquired through reason, and the soul is part of reality. Moreover, he viewed art as an imitation of the world. For him, art was completely the reflection of the actual picture, and it misled the minds of people.
This view of art involves the theory of imitation and the theory of forms. But there are differences between their views. Aristotle proposed that true happiness is dependent on a person and not on society. It could be achieved if a person practices virtues. This presented problems to be overcome by each philosopher: Plato had to give an account of where knowledge could be found while Aristotle had to account for how to have knowledge of that which is undergoing change. Plato and Aristotle both used their definitions of "form" to overcome their relative problems when it came to knowledge.
Form for both philosophers was able to classify all things: chairs are chairs because they reflect the form of a chair. However, their precise definitions of form did differ. Plato claimed that Particulars objects are only crude representations of their Form.
For example, a Beauty Particular such as Helen of Troy is physical and accessible to the senses. Her beauty is also only temporary and relative to the observer, because aging and individual opinions alter how her beauty is observed. Her beauty being combined with non-beautiful parts and non-beautiful perspectives, such as organs, mean that she cannot contain the permanent Form of Beauty within herself.
Rather, Plato claimed that the Form of Beauty is not accessible to the senses and is not physical, existing outside of time and space, and so can only be understood through reason. The Form of Beauty being pure beauty also differs from the Beauty Particular as it is eternally and irrefutably beautiful no matter who experiences it and at what time.
So, a chair is a chair because it has been designed to have the function of a chair. That of which the chair is made could have been given a different form if it had been arranged differently.
This way, the form of an object exists within the object and all similarly designed and purposed objects, so it is unnecessary to disengage from this world in order to understand a form as it can be observed and understood on earth. This also enables one to have knowledge of an object whilst it undergoes change, as its change is contained within its purpose.
For example, an acorn has within its form the potential to become an oak tree if not interfered with. Aristotle proposed that "nature does nothing in vain," as everything has a purpose given to it, perhaps by a God.
With this, Aristotle looks not only at human artifacts, but also nature: eyes have different structures and methods of operation between species, yet they all share the form of an eye, as they all exist for the purpose of seeing. Even though both philosophers use form to understand objects, only Plato believes it is required to gain knowledge. Plato had a more theoretical understanding of ethics in the sense that he believed that wisdom and not learning is the basis of ethics.
In fact, according to Reale , Plato argued that wisdom unified all virtues. Aristotle differed with this point of view by arguing that, although wisdom was virtuous, being virtuous was not automatic Allen et al.
He also argued that achieving virtue did not grant the unification of other virtues Allen et al. In other words, unless a person made an effort to be wise, he would not be able to unite other virtues, thereby making the virtues out of reach.
However, he did not agree with the philosophy that this happiness was automatic. Instead, he argued that there needed to be adequate social constructs to help virtuous people achieve true happiness Reale, According to Politis , the views of the Greeks were more accustomed to adopting the views of Aristotle, as opposed to those of Plato.
As in ethics and philosophy, the views of Plato and Aristotle exposed significant differences in how both philosophers conceived science. According to Reale , the views of Aristotle, in this subject area, significantly dwarfed those of Plato. Although Plato wrote a lot of literature in different fields of science, such as geometry, physics, and biology, his works did not significantly contribute to the growth of knowledge in these scientific areas. Comparatively, Aristotle helped to contribute significantly to the growth of scientific knowledge in different fields.
Although his works overshadowed those of Plato, some people criticize them for their lack of originality Allen et al. Nonetheless, his works were insightful and although they are inapplicable in some scientific fields today, they helped to open lines of inquiry into scientific research.
He also advocated for a Utopian government that comprised of three classes of people — philosophers, warriors, and workers and argued that people who were most qualified should run the government Politis, In his view, these people were philosophical rulers. He also argued that people should always involve themselves in politics because human beings are political in nature Wood,
0コメント