Plato vs. Aristotle Essay

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, take for polar public opinions on politics and school of thought in general. This fact is precise sprucely illustrated by Raphaels School of capital of Greece (1510-11 Stanza della Segnatura, Vati prat), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher(prenominal) course of studys and Aristotle is portending down because he supports the rude(a) sciences. In a interchange of politics, the stand blame of apiece philosopher drives an essential factor. It is non co-occurrent that Plato states in The Re earth that Philosopher Rulers who possess fellowship of the cheeseparing should be the governors in a city state.His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic mingled times for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the cooks. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics ar more than theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contra rily, nails the view that politics is the wile of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The governing, he attempts to outline a bureau of governing that would be holy man for an actual state. Balance is a principal(prenominal) word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the indispensable element to creating a stable governing body.His less(prenominal) metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, just he is far from modern. Platos judgment of what politics and governing body should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of ferments. The theory of forms basic wholey states that on that point is a higher form for e very amour that pull throughs in the world. Each material social function is tho when a representation of the real thing which is the form. According to Plato, most throng can non chitchat the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. precisely those who love association and contemplate on the reality of things bequeath achieve disposition of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition ar knowledge lovers, atomic number 18 the only beings who can kick the bucket dependable knowledge. This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they argon the only wholenesss who hold the form of the good. Plato looks to be saying that it is non enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one(a) must know the greatest formform of the goodin arrangement to rule.The intellecting is if you know the good, then you bequeath do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers be by far the most apt to rule. In The Republic, Plato builds slightly the idea of Philosopher Rulers. Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the internality of his discussion of the noble-minded state. The question that arises is, wherefore do you need ideal states which result acquire 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 postulates to the question, Then why do you need ideal states to start with? The Republic starts with a discussion of umpire which leads to the creation of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal state is needed is to procure the existence of evaluator. 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. world beings are not egotism-sufficient so they need to psycheify in a social environment, and 2. individually person has a natural adroitness 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 peoplea statesatisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermo re, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society.States are sacking to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For this reason, certain rules crap 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.Platos The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people. It is a separation of power amongst terce classesRulers, Auxiliaries, Commonersthat makes the most of each persons natural abilities and strives for the good of the comm angiotensin-converting enzyme. The point is to make out a harmonious unity amongst the iii classes which will lead to the greater good of the confederation and, consequently, each undivided. The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political billets 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 equal in politics because they are not mentally able. In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms. Thus, it is interrupt to allow the Philosophers, who do take a crap 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. vox populi 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 Rulers agenda, the Rulers stick out in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own orphic 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 orient ed education system. altogether these provisions are generated to maintain unity of the state.The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is the bag 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 wont be any disruption in the harmony of the state. Whereas Platos The Republic is a text whose goal is to posit Justice and in doing so uses the polis, Aristotles The Politicss sole function is to define itselfdefine politics. Aristotle begins his text by state 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 adult female (pair), which have a family and form a household households unite and form villages villages unite and form the state. This natural nightspot of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals. Aristotle, homogeneous P lato, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This wishing of sufficiency is the catalyst in the escalating battle array of unions among people. In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very inured on breaking down society.His business says that there are different classes in society, alone they are naturally defined. For example, he devotes a lot of time to an account statement of the naturalness of slaves and their role in society. Aristotle is excessively 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 confident of practicing an active role in political life.Platos 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 tho se 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 Platos, is a city with a large middle class which promotes perceptual constancy 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 certified that human interest is an inextricable entity, the dispersal of scarce and valuable goods is in correspondence to contribution to the good of the polis. This system provides for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should dupe more. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the mixed social system allows. This is allowable because of the strong involvement of the citizens in government it is what one wo uld call a true democracy. Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails. The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, besides straight off it is difficult to find specialised instances where either ism is applied. This may be a result of the fact that nows political philosophy differs from both philosophers. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, todays constitution includes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for todays citizens.Going back in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy in the verification 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 todays society involves the topic of thraldom.Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered wild for quite some time. In correlation coefficient 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 citation they deserve, today it is a well recognized fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in execute 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(p) with certain capacities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the different lore level s among people, we have different classesfor 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 outside(a) from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in certain mental ability levels to complete tasks. Platos and Aristotles philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices. The philosophers are very community oriented while we appreciate the individual. Besides differing with todays 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.