Plato and Aristotle

Plato describes a cave where people are chained up and can only see shadows cast on a wall. He parallels these shadows to the things that people see in the world around them, the materialistic reality that most people base their lives on. He parallels the chains to norms, customs, traditions, habits, etc. Plato believes that because people are so preoccupied with these shadows of the truth, they ignore the real truth. He parallels these shadows to the things that people see in the world around them, the materialistic reality that most people base their lives on. So, it makes sense that Plato wouldn’t want to discount the possibility of a philosopher king based on the fact that he has never seen one, because it could be the “shadows” fooling him into believing that no such man exists. Aristotle, on the other hand, bases his beliefs on what he can see, and what has been proven.

Good tragedy raises fear, pity. Pity is sympathy. We Identify Oedipus the king in order to have sympathy we need to identify. Terror is always this could be me. You think pity and then terror kicks in. Catharsis Is a release You don’t have to experience your reality. We all have murderous feelings. It also means to purge ; they probably have been a purging affect when we go to a play. It puts us in touch with our strong emotions.

Aristotle also believes that this monarchy run by the perfect ruler that Plato describes would be ideal, if it were possible. However, Aristotle doesn’t believe that a perfectly just person exists. Aristotle says that “if” such a perfectly just person did exist he would be a “God among men”, and there are no gods among men. So, Aristotle discounts the possibility of the existence of such a form of government, and moves on to government systems that he believes could realistically exist. Plato can imagine pure justice, and can imagine man who is purely just. It isn’t relevant to Plato whether he has ever met such a man; he just assumes that since he can imagine such a man, it must be possible for such a man to exist. So, it makes sense that Plato wouldn’t want to discount the possibility of a philosopher king based on the fact that he has never seen one, because it could be the “shadows” fooling him into believing that no such man exists. Aristotle, on the other han...

... middle of paper ...

...on historical evidence. So, although by using Plato’s imaginative new scientific discoveries could be made, there would be no previous basis to build on in making these discoveries, and any discoveries that were made would deal with irrelevant “.Using Aristotle’s method also seems to conflict with scientific discovery. Aristotle would look at the scientific knowledge that already exists, and believe that it is true, preventing new discoveries from being made. There would be no point in “thinking outside of the box” because the way things are, is the way things are. A good scientist needs to acknowledge the facts, but be open to new ideas and beware of the “chains” of custom and habit. This also seems to hold true in other matters, such as slavery, women. The best view to live by isn’t the view of Plato, or of Aristotle, it is a combination of the two. A person needs to acknowledge the world around him, but be wary of the “chains” of custom. He needs to be open to new ideas, but keep in mind the hardships that may come with change. He should acknowledge that things might not always be as they seem, but not lose sight of reality. He/She should think like both Plato and Aristotle.