If Aristotle finds Plato’s definition of the soul too dualistic and Democritus’ too materialistic, what does he hold to be true about the soul? Aristotle proffers that the right definition of the soul lay in the mind of “the [philosopher] who mentions both form and matter” (box 332). In Aristotle’s view, soul and body are intertwined, and cannot be separated from one another. He provides an analogy to show the link between form and matter, and the ways in which both Plato and Democritus fail to account for such a link. The analogy goes as follows: take the syllable, CAT, in the word, “category;” this syllable is neither reducible to the sum of letters that make it up, nor is it reducible to letters (or anything else) other than C, A, and T. The materialist would have us believe that CAT is reducible to the sum of its letters, but Aristotle argues that the letters C, A, and T, if not formed in a particular sequence (namely CAT), can not possibly constitute the first syllable of “category.”
…show more content…
Regarding dualism, we see that Aristotle’s conception of form, and of the soul, leaves no room for anything immaterial; in Aristotle’s view, body and soul are inseparable, similar to the way in which an automobile is inseparable from its driver if we are to have a moving car. In this way, he avoids the dualism inherent in Plato’s conception of the soul. What about materialism? Aristotle’s conception of the soul rests on his notion of form, while he concludes that a soul is the form of a living thing. As such, he avoids explaining the actions of humans exclusively in terms of their constituent matter, whether it be their organs, or the interactions of underlying microscopic atoms that Democritus endorses. Again, a moving car can not be reduced to an automobile in and of itself; a driver is required. In these ways, Aristotle avoids what he sees as mistakes on both Plato and Democritus’
Regarding dualism, we see that Aristotle’s conception of form, and of the soul, leaves no room for anything immaterial; in Aristotle’s view, body and soul are inseparable, similar to the way in which an automobile is inseparable from its driver if we are to have a moving car. In this way, he avoids the dualism inherent in Plato’s conception of the soul. What about materialism? Aristotle’s conception of the soul rests on his notion of form, while he concludes that a soul is the form of a living thing. As such, he avoids explaining the actions of humans exclusively in terms of their constituent matter, whether it be their organs, or the interactions of underlying microscopic atoms that Democritus endorses. Again, a moving car can not be reduced to an automobile in and of itself; a driver is required. In these ways, Aristotle avoids what he sees as mistakes on both Plato and Democritus’