Its failure to the first and the second assassination took away his illusions. The gods have a well-shaped body of beings, including that of the man they were with a soul. To inhabit the world, the Demiurge was first created the gods (stars or mythological gods) and charged to give life to animals, so as not to be responsible for their imperfections. Plato’s view of politics is modelled on his vision of the soul, for the manners of a State are necessarily modelled on those of individuals. For example, consider the Form of Humanity. Aristotle was a scientist as well as a philosopher. He believed in an "essence" and an opposite of the essence, which he called "matter." In this tutorial, we will highlight their similarities, then contrast their differences. Plato owed much to his predecessors. To establish a science, Plato had to choose a different starting point: what if the object was assigned to the intelligible world of science rather than the physical world? Aristotle criticises Plato’s conception of the Good, the Agaton, which sometimes is a cause, sometimes not. Undeniably, Plato and Aristotle are the two rock stars of Greek Philosophy. Indeed, in the eyes of the philosopher, the artist is and must remain a mere imitator. For example, in the idea of man as such, what is there more than in the real man? It consists of three classes of citizens for the three parts of the soul: – Philosophers of judges, representing right; – Warriors, who represent courage and are responsible for protecting the state against external enemies and to reduce citizens to obedience; – Finally, farmers, artisans and merchants who represent the instinct and desire. Individual entities are who or what they are because of their participation in the relevant Form. Plato uses mathematics as the paradigm of knowledge, as its truth exists beyond sensory perception. He knew that the doctrine of ideas on which it rests was inaccessible to the crowd, that therefore the constitution should be imposed and it could bring a philosopher king in the manner of Plato. Aristotle proposed that "nature does nothing in vain," as everything has a purpose given to it, perhaps by a God. 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. I am still a Naturalist. Unlike Plato, he believed that we had to first experience everything to make a theory about it rather than declare a theory and then go about proving it. Aristotle believed that for us to know better, we would have to know our experience better. If knowledge is changing and everything has a purpose and if we understand purpose, we gain knowledge, does that mean purpose is knowledge? I am currently studying aristotle and plato so this is a really welcome post. He or she uses and practices these principles in order to become a better person and a better member of society. Once this concession is made, there remained no doubt that, outside of the world of senses, there lies another world: the world of ideas. In Plato's view, the Form of Humanity (and, therefore, the human essence) exists whether or not there are any individual humans. For these three classes of citizens, justice is, as in the individual, to perform its functions so that there is harmony between the three rungs. He also criticises Plato for suggesting that forms exist outside of time and space, as they are non-physical entities. At eighteen, he joined Plato’s Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of thirty-seven. But Plato designed the supra-sensible world as existing alongside, outside the perceptible world. Both of them were metaphysicians, who proposed metaphysical entities which grounded the known world. By living with the material, the soul loses its purity, and in it there are three different parts: An upper part, reason, our contemplative faculty, made to govern and maintain harmony between it and the lower parts: courage, noble and generous faculty, which includes both the desires of our higher nature and will and lastly, instinct and desire which take man to sensitive objects and desires. Plato leaves room for no innovation in this field. These points continue to be debated by philosophers, but Plato and Aristotle did not disagree on them. In short: by definition, the substance cannot be separated from the thing it is in substance. Aristotle is limited to the latter response. Plato then became the teacher of Aristotle who, although a long-term pupil, was able to find many faults in Plato’s theories and in fact became a great critic of his teacher. Plato and Aristotle, teacher and student, are two of the most influential thinkers in history. – The general cannot be an efficient cause or final cause. Socrates was also seen as a great philosopher and, as his pupil, Plato was greatly influenced by his teachings. It would be surprising if Plato and Aristotle were completely opposed in all of their beliefs, since Aristotle studied under Plato at the Academy for 20 years. The three parts of the soul give us each a particular pleasure: – Instincts, the coarse pleasures that Plato calls the pleasure of gain (Republic, 580 d). Compare and contrast Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics. If true, does this imply purpose also changes and is not fixed. There had always been long debate over poetry among two great philosophers. It is governed by the two higher orders, and is only able to submit to public good. This is just wonderful. Both fail to account for the possibility of chance happenings, and each philosopher believes there is an ultimate truth and explanation to everything. It cannot even explain the knowledge we have. The struggle is also portrayed as a worthwhile act, as the person freed now knows reality and not merely the shadow of it. It is most fitting to discuss the difference between Plato and Aristotle in terms of their concepts. Both of them were metaphysicians, who proposed metaphysical entities which grounded the known world. Via Plato, Socrates rejects this definition in the first book of the Republic: justice, as he understands it, comes down to the individual, that each part of the soul should fulfil its own function, and that desire be submitted to courage and courage to reason. Instead of replacing the material world to another world, simply determine the point of view one must consider the world to find it intelligible. As mentioned above, both Plato and Aristotle believed that essences exist, and that they are the grounds for truth. Thus, it is in the subordination of lower desires to the desire to know that virtue resides. Even though both philosophers use form to understand objects, only Plato believes it is required to gain knowledge. Although both of them posited essences as genuine metaphysical entities, their accounts of metaphysics led to very different metaphysical, epistemological and methodological results. Cite this article as: Tim, "Plato and Aristotle Similarities and Differences, November 7, 2017, " in. It is the same in the city. Causality is not essential to the Agaton, as it comes by addition. At the same time, he recognised with the multiplicity of things Democritus and Heraclitus with the reality of becoming (the sensible world). Plato created idealism and Aristotle, later recuperated by Thomas Aquinas, became the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. In fact, there are several ideas for everything, for each subject can be defined by several predicates. Like Socrates, Plato believes that wisdom is the supreme goal of existence. Question: What were Plato and Aristotle's similarities? To summarise, Aristotle’s philosophy is a theory of ideas that would simplify everything and complicate everything … For him, it does not explain the physical world. Plato’s however, does not; as he believed that people needs certain kinds of knowledge of the ‘good life’ in order to live the ‘good life’. Aristotle raises the question of how something which existed beyond time and space can have a connection with those particulars which exist within time and space. Aristotle refuted Plato’s definition, believing it to be unclear and illogical in claiming that a chair can be understood to be a chair due to its relationship with a form existing outside of time and space. The result of which was his writing of “The Rules” towards the end of his life. However, both philosophers do leave holes and questions in their arguments. 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. Aristotle had a more rational approach than Plato. Both have ultimately left large gaps in their theories, which leave them open to criticism. Plato and Aristotle agreed that we must pursue truth by using reason and logic, rather than passion, emotion, and bias. But it is the painters and sculptors of which he is the least fond of. There is a great God who made the world in its image. Aristotle spent … His view of everything having a purpose would suggest that the human body itself has a purpose, which allows it to accommodate what humans should be able to have knowledge of. Prabhat Parimal from India on October 23, 2015: You have elaborately pointed out the differences in their philosophical point of views.