Comparing Plato And Aristotle's On The Form Of The Good

Decent Essays
Abstract
Plato and Aristotle helped shape the foundations of western philosophy. Their very thoughts echo through the corridors of time and they have been immortalized in the annals of academia for ever. While both philosophers agree on a number of topics, they fundamentally represent two different schools of philosophy. Plato and Aristotle have a variety of opinions of common good, social peace, and individual happiness. This paper will compare and explain the position of the philosophers on these three topics.

On the Common Good
The Form of the Good is the Form held in the highest regard by Plato. The Form of the Good is the Form that allows a trainee philosopher to reach the status of Philosopher King. It “provides knowledge for truth” and “is more prized than truth and justice”. Aristotle disagrees with Plato saying that because the Form of the Good does not explain or participate in physical events, it cannot be accounted for in human politics. This is an important background because it sets the stage for Plato’s idea of the common good and Aristotle’s response. Plato argues in the Republic that justice, understood as a virtuosity and
…show more content…
Both of them agree that the common good is something to seek and consider in a political state, yet Plato views it as more idealistic and rooted in communal ideas, while Aristotle is much more individualistic and focused on partnerships. Both philosophers disagree sharply on social peace and order with Plato clamoring for no private property and calling on people to do what they do best, and Aristotle argues in favor of private property and letting individuals pursue the highest good on their own without state intervention. Finally, both philosophers do agree on individual happiness in the sense that it can only arise if we keep our soul in temperate check and by doing virtuous things as if they were natural to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Aristotle’s claim is that friends have no need for justice; this passage will spell out this claim, provide the necessary information as to why Aristotle can claim this, and discuss what this implies. His explanation of justice is much different from that of Plato and Socrates, Aristotle’s predecessors. According to Aristotle, justice is not included in the list of virtues, yet, on the other hand, friendship is, and the logic behind this helps to further the idea that Aristotle wishes to convey. Justice, as viewed by Aristotle, is the whole or completeness of all eleven virtues. Friendship is not dependent on justice, yet is a necessary commodity when it comes to appearing as a just person.…

    • 1030 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Socrates Justice Analysis

    • 1788 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Socrates does not present a thorough argument as to why those with just souls would never act in pragmatically unjust manner, but at least references why he does not believe they would. With regards to the issue of individuals with just souls behaving in a just manner because it is required by justice, Socrates does not specifically address this concern. Socrates himself states that philosopher kings must be compelled to rule (473d), and even though they are just, and ruling is the just action to perform, they would not perform the act of ruling even though justice requires it. It would seem implied, based on Socrates definition of justice, that philosopher kings, given their just souls, would want to rule…

    • 1788 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Like beauty; it can be found in things but you cannot find beauty itself. Plato said that reason finds the good that pervades everything. The highest pursuit in life is to contemplate the good. The closest we come to the good is in contemplation. As philosophers, by contemplating the good they are also closest to the good.…

    • 1141 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, Socrates does not manage to explain how if a virtue makes it “natural”, it is automatically “intrinsically good”. His failure to efficiently demonstrate the truth of this proposition drastically weakens his argument, since he claims justice is the “health” of the soul to prove why it’s good in itself. While claiming his analogy of the weak connection between justice and health, he believes that justice is not only good for itself but good for other things as well, stating that justice results…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to Glaucon, another student of Socrates, we are not. “ No one is willingly just; men will be just only if constrained.” (P.56-d) Glaucon challenges the principles of Justice. His explanation of justice is powerful because it holds some truth. When we shun evil away is for the fear of punishment. When we help others is for a hope of a reward.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nevertheless, his understanding of justice has an ambiguous character because the idea that “giving to one what he owes” occurs a problem of the value and prohibits the transition between classes. The equity, but not equality offered by Plato presupposed that no individual has an equal value within the ideal state, rather has only equal value merely within the equals. So, justice for Plato means to give someone what he deserves, however, the problem is that how to determine the value and the degree of merit, how can its be measured and by whom? As for Aristotle elaborating his ideas on justice in Nichomachean Ethics, provide a more detailed reflection on justice than Plato. Similar to Plato, Aristotle considered also justice as a virtue and moderation yet contrary to Plato, he thought that justice is not in the soul, but in the actions.…

    • 1127 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In Plato’s Gorgias, there is a common theme in Socrates’ ideas, where his view of rhetoric has no base on truth. Socrates outlines two forms of persuasion, providing knowledge and belief without knowledge, and applies rhetoric to the latter. He makes this distinction by questioning the use of rhetoric in situation about what is just and unjust, such as, a courtroom. The people of the courtroom must be convinced of what is the most just thing today, there is no possible way they could be persuaded through the provision of all the knowledge about the situation because that knowledge is unavailable to them. Therefore, the court must make their decisions on belief.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This would mean that the Athenian way of life is the life of virtue and therefore the life worth living; Socrates by questioning this way of life is going against what Meletus and his supporters perceive to be virtue. Socrates find this absurd and tells Meletus, “I do not believe you…and I do not think anyone else will” because how could one possibly believe that all Athenians except Socrates have the proper understanding of virtue. Socrates in stating this is asserting that if the jurymen believe in Meletus’ claim then they will be giving justice based on who they favor and not in accordance with the law. By doing this, they would be disobeying the laws of the state which Socrates says is impious in the Crito and therefore, would not be leading lives of virtue according to his perception of virtue. Following his…

    • 1839 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This argument explains that, Aristotle’s functional argument is successful because his understanding comes from the belief that, everything works towards a purpose/goal and ours is to use reason to achieve Eudaimonia, the supreme good, essentially the good life. But its problematic because his theory is vague and does not really have a role in morality because there are no guidelines to…

    • 1482 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Aristotle Vs Plato

    • 1104 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He thinks of the platonic good which is a starting point on the form of the good. For Plato, in the final analysis to understanding why anything is the way it is you have to participate in this form. Plato believes that knowledge, truth and beauty are all good things so they must participate in the form of the good. This form alone makes all things intelligible. Plato believes that you will not find a satisfactory answer to your question until you discover why it is for the best that knowledge should exist and discovering that its equivalent to seeing its participation in the forms of the goodness itself.…

    • 1104 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics