Both Plato and Aristotle do believe that the soul and body are separate entities, however, the soul is what allows the body to function. Both of these ideas on the soul presents and go into much detail, but which idea makes more sense to most readers is
The ability for the self to think, reason, and perceive believed by many philosophers is to relate ourselves to our bodies and bring ourselves to achieve a destiny. The philosophers who believe in the idea of self believe that the self is essentially independent of the physical body. It is a nonphysical element of... ... middle of paper ... ...ery topic discussed in this paper, it can be concluded that the idea of individuality explains the existence of life. Time, morals, and opinions all can be debated based on individual perception and thoughts through the self, enduring self. Reality is a difficult element to explain but through the ability of ourselves to shape the world around us based on our skepticism and knowledge; we are able to exist independently.
Aristotle agreed with Plato that knowledge is something that’s true and it must be justified. Their metaphysics caused us to think way beyond our nature and explore distinctive ways of viewing everything that exists and not exist in our presence. What defines philosophy? The Greek words “wisdom” and “love”, which seeks the quest for knowledge. Now, all these questions that we ask ourselves about life and the meaning of our existence is found in the minds of our most famous philosophers.
The search for truth is going to take place until the people exist on the Earth. Both Plato and Peirce have given varying philosophical thoughts helping our search for the truth. Although the beliefs, both the philosophers have based their ideas on are different, Peirce and Plato have stressed the importance of finding the ultimate meaning of truth and neither of them are easily fixed in a belief. This is important in the development and the future existence of the society.
He knows not to place the highest value on the pleasures of the body, such as eating and drinking. Each pleasure and pain is like a nail that pins the soul to the body, making it less able to escape. A philosopher will break free of these nails by listening only to reason and preparing for a contented life after death. Socrates continues his argument by stating that justice, beauty, and goodness in their final or absolute form have never been perceived by the eyes, ears, or any other bodily sense. So as long as we are in the body and the soul is mixed with this evil, our desire for truth will never be satisfied.
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.
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.
Although these problems exist, through using philosophy, Plato offers intellectual insight on how to gain truth. Because of the distinction between mythology and philosophy, mankind can use both when exploring fundamental life questions. An essential to fully understanding fundamental life questions is to know both how and why a situation occurs, which can be discovered through combining mythology and
Socrates instead feels like the workings of the universe should be described through theories “investigating the truth of things by means of words (Phaedo, 99e), and coming up with conclusions as to why certain things are the way they are. Therefore, Socrates makes a strong case for each of his arguments to prove immortality. The most convincing argument for me was that of the argument of forms while the least effective argument was that of recollection. Although Socrates’ arguments were well supported, each argument had its flaws and still left questions unanswered. The issue that Socrates had with Anaxagoras was that they had a different view on how the workings of the universe should be described.
Platos' Theory of Human Nature In my opinion, Socrates’ analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us his definition of justice. I agree with his theory of human nature but not his social-political theory. In order to understand Plato’s theory of human nature and his social-political theory, we must examine each one of them closely. Plato believed that no one is self-sufficient enough to live individually. Human beings are not created equally; some of us are born wiser then the rest and some of us are just born stronger.