Plato's Argument Analysis

Plato’s doctrine of the Forms finds its roots in his search for true knowledge. For Plato, true knowledge has to be something that is objective, unchanging, and universal. In his observance of the physical world around him he concludes that due to its changing nature, or flux, this true knowledge cannot reside in this reality. In turn, he concludes that to obtain this true knowledge one cannot rely on their senses as they are inadequate. To be unchanging and objective it therefore must reside outside of, or separate from, the physical existence in a transcendent state. In this way, Plato distinguishes between the physical world of sense experience and that of rational knowledge. What Plato was seeking was the purest idea of something or its …show more content…
That Form must be the perfect embodiment of the universal characteristic that is common to all of the particulars in that category. For example, there are two men, Bob and Roy. Each is a man and participates in the Form of man. The Form of man must be the perfect embodiment of that universal characteristic, which is being a man. That would then result in the Form now becoming a participant itself, thus creating the need for another Form in which all of the men, Bob, Roy, and the perfect man, would need to participate. However, the process would repeat itself and thereby create an infinite regress of Forms which is a rational impossibility. So, while Plato’s doctrine of the Forms has obvious unresolved difficulties, it still represented a monumental leap forward in early philosophy and has been influential on thinkers, scientists, and theologian alike. He has profoundly illustrated mankind’s quest for understanding the world and reality in which he …show more content…
Aristotle asserts that while every substance has form and matter, potential and actuality, they still require some form of actualization. This actualization must itself be purely actualized because to require something to move it, or to have some kind of potential, would mean that it has to be sustained by something other than itself, eventually leading to an infinite regress. Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover is not personal or relational type of entity, as that would require it to be emotionally attached. It cannot be moved by anything else, or be vulnerable in any other way. It is the fourth and final cause and it moves everything. It must be the highest form of reality, fully actualized. All other things retain potential, yet it is