Even though, he did not explicitly say that he was countering Plato’s theories about art, in his writings that was what he did. First, Aristotle contested Plato’s belief that a person is either rational or emotional, split between a half animal and half divinity and that one should only strive to be logical. Instead, Aristotle saw the fault in this theory and believed that there is no such thing as two irreconcilable parts but that all the faculties interacted together. Mainly all we do uses the mind, and it is impossible to separate a rational part from the emotional. And so it is incorrect to say that art appeals solely to emotion but not reason because they two are connected.
Epistemology is a word philosophers use to define knowledge. Nevertheless, Plato and Aristotle’s theory of knowledge led our generation to visualize and interpret ourselves in a defined way. Their two different views in knowledge share a common idea, which is that knowledge must be based on a systematic method. Without their guidance, our ability to grasp our doubts would become untenable. I will present their theories of knowledge by comparing and contrasting Plato and Aristotle’s theory of knowledge.
in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle. During the ancient times in Greece, Plato was the first human to document and criticize the existence of art and artists. He mentioned that human art was always in a form of a representation of something else. In one of Plato’s famous works, he demonstrates the idea of art is like an “imitation of nature” (Blocker 3).
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the theory of Plato's Forms from his perspective and that of several others, including Aristotle. Topics The topics in which I will mainly focus on will be Forms as universals, Forms as separate entities (substances), Universe as two realities, and Forms as final causes. For the most part, the topics are interwoven together yet I will try to separate them in such a fashion as to provide sufficient arguments for each main topic. II. "In View of Plato's Theory of Forms" Topic #1: Forms as Universals "The essence of [Plato's] theory of Ideas (Forms) lay in the conscious recognition of the fact that there is a class of entities, for which the best name is probably "universal," that are entirely different from sensible things" (Allen 18).
Here comes another important aspect to grasp from Plato’s philosophy: the existence of Forms – Ideals. To him, the true was what did not change. Opinions change, beliefs change, but forms – or ideas - do not as they are universal. Nor are they divisible and could be represented in the material form. The people of ancient Greece were considered by him to be obsessed with that which changes over time; since the forms were universal, the people mistakenly called all beautiful things the good things and took opinions for ideas.
The definition of what a perfect person was developed by Plato. Plato believed that the physical world did not matter it was the form in the ideal world and this value of form and thought can be seen throughout many of the works of art. Plato said that in the physical world we did not see the real object we only saw a shadow of it. The art of this time period showed form and subject that were far more perfect than one could actually exist in the real would in an attempt to represent the world of ideas. All of these aspects together confirm that Plato has a major influence on Greek art of the time.
Boylu often brings out different perspectives on Plato’s philosophy of epistemology through the expertise of Gail Fine, who has written, “Plato on Knowledge and Forms,” a work of compiled essays. While the author Boylu is knowledgeable on Plato’s epistemology, there should have been more depth and detail in the forms themselves than just the constant repetition that episteme and doxa are exclusively different. The analyzation of Plato’s Republic and the concept of philosophers being the ruling class for a state to avoid evil connects to my essay in the sense that knowledge derives from reason not and brings man closer to harmony. The article clarifies the answer as to how belief and opinion are in between of what is (knowledge/truth) and what is not (ignorance). I plan to use the in-depth interpretation of the difference between knowledge and belief, between a philosopher and the lover of the senses in my
Metaphysics is the study of what is actually real about the makeup of the physical existence of the world. When researching this topic it showed that their were two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle who were passionate about this topic, but had two separate views. Plato thought that metaphysics was about the different Forms and the unchanging ideas that rest beneath the changing physical world, coming to the conclusion of dualism. Contrasty, Aristotle thought that metaphysics was about the physical substance of matter, form, and the universal imbedded in the item, which brought him to the conclusion of monism and the four causes. When thinking critically and analyzing each of the philosophers we must consider both a strength and a weakness about each of the differing ideas of metaphysics.
Not only were there differences in these two philosophers approaches towards knowledge but the metaphysical beliefs of the two philosophers were worlds apart. Socrates believed the psyche of a human came from a world of forms which is another realm where the form of everything exists.4 In the Phaedo Socrates best describes his belief of the psyche when he says "and what did you think of that part of the argument in which we said that knowledge was recollection only, and infer... ... middle of paper ... ...g questions and the belief that knowledge is already built into the person, Aristotle created his own form of logic that is meant to derive the correct answer. Not only did Aristotle derive his own form of logic but he also created four causes that were meant to also answer various questions of why. These four causes were necessary to completely understanding the thing being studied. Other than the epistemological differences of these two philosophers both also showed severe differences in their metaphysical ideas.
The imagination is a tricky facet of the human mind for the philosopher. Each philosopher seems to have his own definitions of what the senses and the human imagination actually are, and the role that each plays in the development and everyday existence of man. Plato errs on the side of shunning the arts and the imaginative in the Republic. Others like Aristotle and Hobbes are more welcoming, treating the imagination as a facet, or a close relative of the memory. Despite the varying opinions, one plaguing question remains, of what use is the imagination to the philosopher?