Analysis Of Aristotle, Plato, And Aristotle's Nicomachean Philosophy

To determine what philosophy is, one should analyze the great philosophers of the past as an aid to define the many characteristics that form the complex concept. The contributions created by Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates to understandings of good, virtue, and the nature of wisdom address the question of what philosophy entails. In studying the works of these three thinkers, it becomes appropriate to conclude that philosophy is the cultivation of the desire to learn and pursue wisdom.

In Book I and Book II of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle addresses the ideas of the good and happiness, and how these concepts inform one’s understanding of moral virtue. Book I is comprised of thirteen parts in which Aristotle distinguishes the good and how

To both Plato and Socrates, definitions were vitally important. A definition is the heart of an idea, and without it the idea is essentially “dead”. By searching for a definition, one not only obtains an answer, but can see the logical or illogical path that leads to such findings. Definitions make up the building blocks of knowledge. Such knowledge was vital to both Plato and Socrates since they viewed wisdom as being gained through the desire to obtain knowledge and the acceptance of human limitation. Both philosophers seemingly fixated more on subtly pointing out the flaws in another’s proposed logic or answer through the use of questions rather than giving an outright opposing statement or resolution. Through the use of this method of questioning everything the philosophers helped individuals find their own flaws in their rationality, instead of merely arguing an opposing point. Ideally, when these individuals were “finding their own error” they would become more enticed to continue on the journey to find the correct answer, essentially instilling the individual with an inherent desire to learn and therefore a greater capacity for wisdom. Through this method of Socratic questioning, the philosophers were able to probe society to think beyond just cause and effect, and delve more

Throughout this mission, Socrates talked with politicians, artisans, poets and other “experts," and soon realized they all lacked true wisdom. When Socrates tried to explain this lack of real wisdom on the part of the “experts," he noted the consequence was their hatred of him for doing so. Socrates discovered then, that ultimately, they knew nothing more than he did. The difference resides in the fact that Socrates did not pretend to know what he didn’t. While reflecting on his findings, he defined wisdom as human humility, which meant that true wisdom stems from the acknowledgment of one’s own ignorance. After Socrates arrived at this definition of wisdom, he resolved to share his newfound knowledge on what wisdom truly consists of. He likened himself to a gadfly, as he intended to “sting” the citizens of Athens. He would expose their ignorance though a method of questioning that resulted in the exposure of faulty logic. Taking this idea a step farther, the philosopher would claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Through this statement, Socrates acknowledges the distinct difference between living and merely existing. He states that an individual should carefully analyze themselves if they wish to live a life that is worth living. If they do not, they are just existing with no greater purpose. A lack of knowledge, wisdom, or the