Aristotle's Theory Of Aristotle

In this essay I will describe Aristotle’s and Plato’s metaphysics and ethics, and show that Aristotle’s theory is superior. I will argue that Aristotle’s theory is more relatable to the layman. As such, if taught to the masses, will be better understood, and therefore more widely accepted and put into practice. I will also show that while it is a less challenging concept to grasp, it is not inferior for that reason. If the ultimate goal is to better the world, we have to start with what we have. Begin at the common ground, and correct the mistakes and fallacies in thinking. To understand Aristotle, we have to first understand Plato, who looks at the world and thing around himself, seeing reflections of reflections. Shadows, reflections, versions, …show more content…
Having knowledge, or knowing the Form of the Good Itself, is to do it. So how do you come to this point? Plato divides up the soul of man into three parts, calling it the tripartite soul. There is the appetitive soul that seeks basic needs: sustenance, shelter, safety, etc. Some who is dominated by appetites is like an addict. Everything they do is to serve their appetite. Drugs, praise, sex, food, doesn’t matter what it is specifically. Second, the passionate soul which is ruled by emotions: love, lust, hate, fear, pride. Any action is motivated by the emotion most prevalent at the time. This is the dictator, the reactionary, who decides what to do, or how to react based on their prevailing emotion. The third part is the one that Plato says we should seek to dominate the other two: The reasoning soul. While the other two parts are vital to human wellbeing and happiness, when the reasoning soul is dominant, the other two are yoked like two horses behind a chariot. Imagine a hungry, or an emotional horse behind the reigns of a chariot. Not a lot of good will come of that. Therefore, akrasia, to know the good and not do it, is not possible. Those who do Bad simply don’t know Good. They do not have their tripartite soul …show more content…
Being more relatable to the layman, may be seen as less challenging. This tends to be seen as inferior. Bodybuilders don’t go to the gym to lift less than their maximum capacity. To improve your reading level, you don’t just keep reading picture books. On an individual level, I would agree that less challenge will not lead to growth and therefore change. But at the same time you don’t go from reading Everybody Poops, to War and Peace, overnight. I believe that Plato’s theories, while valid, are too abstract to relate to the masses. Therefore, on a bigger scale, looking past small groups to communities or even entire countries, being less challenging is an advantage. I believe Aristotle’s theory therefore helps more people develop a solid moral compass. For the layman, his theory is easier to arrive at a