Plato vs. Aristotle—A conflict of “Ethic” proportions
Plato and Aristotle are arguably two of the greatest philosophers to ever live. Though each philosopher has his own, separate ideas, both Plato and Aristotle make valid points about their own theory of ethics and their methods of reasoning. Both philosophers created works that have influenced some of the worlds most popular enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Nietzche as well as ground breaking scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo. While both Plato and Aristotle have created works that have changed the way people think for thousands of years, each philosopher has developed and refined completely different methods of reasoning and beliefs regarding virtue and ethics.
In the Euthypro, …show more content…
He asks his friends to ponder the question with him, “Is there life after death?” Shortly after his inquiry, Socrates’ shackles are removed. An intense feeling of pleasure overwhelms him once the pain from the shackles subsides. This illustration introduces the pleasure and pain theme—pain can lead to pleasure, while pleasure can also lead to pain. Socrates puts his feet on the ground, thus symbolizing the physical world. His actions are the beginning of his “life after death” discussion. Socrates starts to philosophize. In our world, things move from one antithesis to the other. For example, when a light is on and you flip the switch, the light is then turned off. Socrates explains that our lives follow this same pattern. Once you are born, you live, only to die. When you die, however, there is life after death. He justifies his answer by hypothesizing that all of our knowledge is a result of our innate experience with the World. The mind has a way of grasping things, even in the absence of experience. For example, at about 14 months old, children begin to speak and use sigs to communicate. Socrates theorizes that throughout life when we are supposedly learning, we are really just recalling all the preexisting knowledge from our previous lives. When Socrates suggests life after death, he is not suggesting that there is a heaven or a hell that we automatically go to as a religious person …show more content…
I believe that ethics is not a subject that can necessarily be taught, however I do think that through reading Plato and Aristotle, we can better understand human nature and its relationship to ethics, as well what we as humans have to do to become people of good character. Theoría and phronesis can both be applied when answering different questions. Theoría, or theoretical wisdom, deals with knowing something in particular and asking questions to justify that we do in fact know that a specific something is true. On the other hand, phronesis, or practical wisdom, is knowing how something is the case, thus being able to explore the “how’s” and “why’s” of things. While both may make sense, especially more specifically to different cases, I believe that Aristotle has the more preferable view point on wisdom. Anyone can develop a theory about something and use hypothetical reasons to support that claim. In my opinion, practicality makes it easier to make sense of things and see facts more clearly. Both philosophers use satisfactory methods to reason, but more realistically, Aristotle’s practical reasoning is
Plato and Aristotle are arguably two of the greatest philosophers to ever live. Though each philosopher has his own, separate ideas, both Plato and Aristotle make valid points about their own theory of ethics and their methods of reasoning. Both philosophers created works that have influenced some of the worlds most popular enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Nietzche as well as ground breaking scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo. While both Plato and Aristotle have created works that have changed the way people think for thousands of years, each philosopher has developed and refined completely different methods of reasoning and beliefs regarding virtue and ethics.
In the Euthypro, …show more content…
He asks his friends to ponder the question with him, “Is there life after death?” Shortly after his inquiry, Socrates’ shackles are removed. An intense feeling of pleasure overwhelms him once the pain from the shackles subsides. This illustration introduces the pleasure and pain theme—pain can lead to pleasure, while pleasure can also lead to pain. Socrates puts his feet on the ground, thus symbolizing the physical world. His actions are the beginning of his “life after death” discussion. Socrates starts to philosophize. In our world, things move from one antithesis to the other. For example, when a light is on and you flip the switch, the light is then turned off. Socrates explains that our lives follow this same pattern. Once you are born, you live, only to die. When you die, however, there is life after death. He justifies his answer by hypothesizing that all of our knowledge is a result of our innate experience with the World. The mind has a way of grasping things, even in the absence of experience. For example, at about 14 months old, children begin to speak and use sigs to communicate. Socrates theorizes that throughout life when we are supposedly learning, we are really just recalling all the preexisting knowledge from our previous lives. When Socrates suggests life after death, he is not suggesting that there is a heaven or a hell that we automatically go to as a religious person …show more content…
I believe that ethics is not a subject that can necessarily be taught, however I do think that through reading Plato and Aristotle, we can better understand human nature and its relationship to ethics, as well what we as humans have to do to become people of good character. Theoría and phronesis can both be applied when answering different questions. Theoría, or theoretical wisdom, deals with knowing something in particular and asking questions to justify that we do in fact know that a specific something is true. On the other hand, phronesis, or practical wisdom, is knowing how something is the case, thus being able to explore the “how’s” and “why’s” of things. While both may make sense, especially more specifically to different cases, I believe that Aristotle has the more preferable view point on wisdom. Anyone can develop a theory about something and use hypothetical reasons to support that claim. In my opinion, practicality makes it easier to make sense of things and see facts more clearly. Both philosophers use satisfactory methods to reason, but more realistically, Aristotle’s practical reasoning is