Aristotle’s Virtuous response to Plato’s Theory of Forms

Two cosmospower, facing a w any, where they delight themselves observation shadows of figures that flit in and nearly their sight they argon euphoric and content, single they do non notice chains in their arms and legs. They earn been pris mavinrs of their possess room since childhood. A door stand open as sounds of people chattering and making noise go along with the suspect puppets brought about by a large fire. The two men hap to be am applyd, until such time the one of them bars a bearing from the chain. His curio bewildery takes him around the room, exploring things he had never seen, touched and felt before.And wherefore, he ventures outside. He is instanter blinded by the sun, scarce he regains focus and sees lakes, valleys, mountains and tree the truly things he had seen by means of the shadow puppets illuminated by light. He feels have to return to the room and tell his experiences with his break-dancener. But his partner refuses. He is content. He is ign orant, yet happy. On the other hand. The two chain separates have no sentiency of goal or purpose. They rely on their insensible retireledge of the hu homophile race and immediately base it as source of their own knowledge. unfathomable to them, the outside introduction of the sample exists, and they have no sense of employment to overcome their ignorance and to further inquire into the ideal instauration. This, in a nutshell, is the primary premise of Platos Allegory of the hollow which is a part of his dialogues in The Republic. Plato argues in one his tenets on the guess of Forms that the outside world the Great Compromiser unknowable that public is compelled to view the ideal or the eidos when he is supply with already subtle images of the real.Mans contentment is b aimed with ignorance that enables him to sit placidly and watch the images or shadows that do not ultimately come apart a percept of the outside world. In contrast, Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics t olerate a clear and distinct discretion on the nature of adult male itself, where hu composition races ultimate purpose is say toward the attainment of the fair or eudaimonia, which is a offer of gratification and greater instinct. The founding of meritoriousness necessitates the undivided to conceive of a area which t give the axeingers personal and wilful makeing of the self in order to know. This state of knowing, in Aristotelian terms, is cogitate on the idea of comfort. In response to the question, the paper will archetypical discuss the views brought about by Plato on the subject of Scepticism by with(predicate) with(predicate) an enumeration and explanation of his Theory of Forms, specifically on the Allegory of The hollow out that brings about the sceptical challenge posed by Plato whether the singular has the potency of attaining unbent knowledge.Consequently, Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics will flack to deliver arguments that whitethorn answer the challenges posed on scepticism through a monistic antenna on the Theory of Forms contrary to the dualistic fantasyion of the world of Forms and Ideas. In addition, Aristotles virtue-establish honourable system will also provide explanation toward the individuation of man in making his own preference and achieving authoritative knowledge or happiness. Plato and the Cave As narrated in the aforementioned(prenominal) passages, one of Platos main philosophies is on the theory of Forms and Ideas.The Allegory of the Cave sums up one of his numerous epistemological assertions on universals that is, the complete assent of a universal tangent in the universe that clay unchanged, frankincense the existence of the ideal world or the eidos. As narrated in the passage, the exploit itself is an allegory, meaning that the objects and char displaceers of the story act as symbols that reconcile one of Platos philosophies. The two men in the story (originally described as prisoners) ar e in a cave since childhood. This implies that man is born ignorant of true knowledge and the world around him.This also reflects Platos stewardship with his pather mentor, Socrates, wherein the archetypical method of gaining true knowledge is through a clear reassertion of own self-ignorance in order to know I know zip and therefrom I moldiness question to know. In relation to the allegory, the men are also chained to their turn outs that is, ignorance prevents them of exploring the outside world, to know the ideal. barely they remained imprisoned to their own ignorance. Second, the images barf by a large fire in the back of the cave symbolize the chassis the unreal objects of reality that plainly provides a distorted perception of what is real.These images are reflected by the fire and cast into shadows onto the walls in which the two men happily watch. This symbolization means that the individual only perceive his world as a mere internal representation of the ideal. For example, to view a plain object, like a chair or an apple, is not to view it as it is meaning that these objects are mere representations of the ideal world, thus they are only forms of the ideal. Next, there are also ambient noises of shouts and screams that the two prisoners immediately attribute it with the images they are seeing.This implies that sensual experience cannot solely determine what is real. In order to know, one must question and therefore this precept establishes the foremost principles of rationalism, which is knowledge based on question rather than experience. Further, these men, fed with sounds and images, remain ignorantly happy, and therefore establishes continuity with regards contentment. The chains represent ignorance as it hinders both(prenominal) men of establishing real knowledge. Plato then presents a scenario where one of the men breaks free from his bondage.It takes time though, to walk in and about his place because it is the first time to do s uch. Man then explores things that he had not seen before the real of objects of the representations he used to see in the cave. out-of-door the cave, he is blinded by the sun, yet regains his focus to see things as they are. He is then compelled to tell his fellow of his experiences. However, his companion is hopelessly happy and content with his ignorance that he refuses to free himself from his bondage. The implications of the constituteing symbolisms represent the hopeless refusal of the chained man from knowing what is real. Instead, he focuses his attention toward the petty illusions of the form he had hopelessly chained himself with ignorance that provides him with happiness and contentment that he refuses to venture into a whole new different realm. On the other hand, the free man extricates himself from the illusions brought about the form and ventures hesitatingly toward the ideal. Plato notes the level of unease and difficulty in facing such since man has long been ign orant of the ideal world. Yet through difficulty, the attainment of true knowledge should be the sole reason of overcoming such obstacles.The symbolism of the sun, which blinds the free man as soon he leaves the cave, represents the intellectual illumination brought about by the ideal. This can also be related to a theistic interpretation of Platos view on God. The blinding illumination represents greatness of the Thus, Platos scepticism is unidentified through the design of man in search of the ideal. Taking from the philosophies of Socrates, Platos Theory of Forms argues for a search using rational thought and the mode of question in supposition with the sensual experience in attaining knowledge.This thought lies with the notion of sceptical assimilation of knowledge whether it can be attained or not. For Plato, the notion of the Good or the Ideal remains speculative since mans ignorance prevents him from seeking such. A brio in the Golden soaked On the other hand, Aristotle argues ethics is the search for the chief end and last(a) goal in life. Ethical knowledge is not precise compared to maths and sciences, but it is a practical discipline in a way that in order to be good or virtuous is not to quantify it as a study but to in truth draw good or virtuous.Aristotle conceptualized that the highest good is happiness the universal end of homosexual life. Contrary to Platos self-existing good, happiness should be practical rather than abstract or ideal. The Highest Good must be desirable in itself and not for approximately other good. Happiness is found in the experience of life and hunt that is unique to tender-hearteds or the rational intellect. The function of human beings is then to do what is inherently human, because to be good is to individuate oneself through the use of reason or logos.To progress to happiness, according to Aristotle, is line with the takement of the inherent purpose of the human soul. In addition, Aristotle states that an ethical virtue is a see among what is in free or wanting(predicate). However, Aristotle did not espouse honorable relativism as he assigned legitimate emotions (hate, envy, jealousy) and certain actions (theft, murder) as intrinsically wrong in spite of different circumstances. In his work, the Nichomachean Ethics, the process to achieve happiness is to look a mean or midpoint dirt between the two polar opposite of a particularly subject.For example, reserve is a middle ground between two emotions. Too a lot modesty leads to bashfulness and the lack leads to shamelessness. The foundation of the mean between the opposites of behavior is the Golden Mean. Aristotles ethics is goal-oriented that every being has a definite purpose or end. In line with Platos thought, both philosophies mall itself on the individual and choice. The difference lies with Aristotles ethical system wherein his virtues achieve the personality its purpose, as opposed to Platos aim of achievin g knowledge.As mentioned from disc one of the Ethics, every art and inquiry, is thought to aim at about good and for this reason the good has been rightly declared to be that at which all things aim (Pojman 2007, p. 375). Thus, Aristotles primary aim is for the attainment of the good, which all behaviour and action is directed to such. Plato argues for an assertion of knowledge as implied in the allegory, but Aristotle contradicts this argument that the ideal or the good is not otherworldly and ungetatable but can be achieved through the direction of happiness in an individuals life.Aristotle defines virtue as excellence, not only in the material, bodily part of man but also of the soul for the good we are seeking was human good and the happiness human happiness. By human excellence we mean not that of the body but that of the soul and happiness also we call an activity of the soul (Pojman 2007, p. 382). For Aristotle, the concept of the good is not metaphysical, but rather attain able a state of excellence motivated by virtue of the soul. This contrasts sharply with Platos notion of a self-existing good or the universals (the ideal, eidos).The human estimation, according to Aristotle, naturally aligns its intellection toward abstraction and the innovation of the form and ideal does not necessitate a separation of these two worlds. Rather, he argues that the attainment of the ideal is equated with the good or happiness and that it can be practically achieved through a life practiced with virtue. On the concept of virtue, Aristotle defines these as excellence on the part of the human soul. However, these virtues may either be in dissipation or soil that ultimately harms both the body and soul. Let us view this, that it is in the nature of such things to be destroyed by defect and excess, as we see in the case of strength and health both excessive and defective exercise destroys the strength and similarly drink or food which is above or below a certain measurement destroys the health (Pojman 2007, p. 384). The same occurrence happens with virtue a virtuous act cannot be considered if it is in defect or in excess. For example, fear is a polar opposite of rashness while courage is the arbitrate virtue. both defect and excess are considered vice and therefore follows a certain amount of pain.Vice only exists in the bodily understanding of the mind while virtue (courage, temperance, justice) is nobler and mans duty is to attain such. deterrent example excellence or virtue is then a mediation between virtue and vice and it through such that man achieves happiness. The Golden Mean, on the other hand, is a mediated state which enables the individual to achieve eudaimonia through virtue, which is a moderate state that separates excess and deficiency. As explained in the aforementioned passages, this balance relies on the understanding of excess or defect.The graceful virtues, according to Aristotle, are courage, temperance, truthfulnes s, among others. These are the mediated forms of vice (courage as a middle ground between foolhardiness and fear). Scepticism Response In relation to the sceptical problems posited by Plato in his Theory of Forms, the arguments is the nature in which knowledge is acquired, which according to Platonic philosophy, is mans goal to break free from ignorance and to attain true knowledge. Plato slightly deviates from Socrates methods through the conception of the world of the ideal and forms.His challenge of scepticism lies primarily with the senses as explained in the allegory. The sensual experiences of individual cannot entirely guarantee a clear perception of what is real or not. Thus, the sensory images that man experiences everyday represent an ideal form on some outside world. The problem lies with the method of achieving such that is, actually conceiving of perfect idea of a delineate object. For Aristotle on the other hand, he answers this challenge through the conception of his own ideal end of man achieving happiness.For Aristotle, the dualistic conception of the realm of the form and ideal, though abstract, does not necessarily mean that it is apart. Rather, he argues that both worlds are unified into one bedded substance and the ideal (eudaimonia, happiness) exist in the sensory world that the individual lives around. Thus, he categorizes the different factors of the world that the individual lives around through the conception of virtue and vice. Aristotles ethical system solely rely on the individual to conceptualize or to practice virtue in order to achieve happiness.Contrary to Platos theory, the assimilation of virtue is entirely attainable through a more practical practice rather than a metaphysical understanding. However, both philosophers share the same struggle in achieving the coveted state of human consciousness That moral excellence is a mean, then, and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving e xcess and deficiency. Hence, it is no unproblematic task to be good. For in everything it is not easy task to find the middle (Pojman 2007, p. 388).The same amount of effort, as characterized in the allegory, involve to be equally powerful or in this case, needs to have complete understanding on what it is to be in the middle ground. As Aristotles goal-centered ethical system, it contrasts with the implication brought by Platos allegory wherein there is only an imagined state of escape from ignorance rather than a self-proclaimed attempt of defining ones life. In the allegory, it is clearly presented from the symbolisms that the reader must imagine the man escaping from the chains of ignorance in order to view the world of the eidos.Based from this premise, it can be assumed that this freedom of ignorance is through an understanding of the unreal that one must question in order to know what real knowledge is. Platos problem on scepticism lies on the idea whether the ignorant man has the capability to question or understand the unreal objects of impression and further realizes the ideal that which represents it. Aristotle addresses this through the Nichomachean Ethics wherein the individual character and disposition of man is necessary in directing his own life to an objective state of happiness.Contrary to the dualistic notion of the form and ideal, both worlds, according to Aristotle, exists as one and are the world of forms is represented with the vice. Vice is considered a material, worldly state, something that opposes happiness through its polar opposites. dissipation of happiness is indulgence and pleasure while the lack of it is melancholy. Both states however, follow a certain amount of pain since it neither provides balance, unceasingly an excess or lack. Through the practice of virtue and mediation, the individual experiences eudaimonia through a careful re-examination of action and the application of virtue.The virtuous life does not have pain, defect or excess, since it is mediated in the middle that is conservatively suited to ones individual needs. Aristotles idea of happiness is similar to that of Platos ideal world. However, Platos conception of the ideal remains unachievable, since the individuals response to their own ignorant states already provide them a sense of satisfaction and happiness. For Aristotle, this mediocre sense of happiness is not the final end or purpose of man.Rather, the application of the Nichomachean Ethics provide another greater purpose or end. The theory of forms merely presents a sceptical approach to mans choice to break free from ignorance. Aristotle answers this problem through a character-oriented approach that which gives purpose to the individual to totally break out from sensory experience and to question the world around him. A mediated knowledge Therefore, we conclude that Aristotles arguments opposing Platos Theory of Forms practically answers the sceptical problem of knowledge in Platos allegory.The question whether man has the capability to break free from ignorance is answered through an evaluation of personal character and moral beliefs in attaining a redirected good happiness. Through the valuation of an end object, the individual is then given purpose. This purpose, applied with Platos ideologies, gives the ignorant man a sense of responsibility to know and redirect action toward a much nobler purpose. The individual is then not forever condemned with his own ignorance as he has a purpose to fulfil. Thus, the imagined state of freedom from bondage is foregone from a wilful acknowledgement of purpose.In Aristotles notion, this purpose is directed toward happiness which individuates the being through purpose. These notions can also be based on the succeeding theories on rationalism and existentialism where Aristotles ethical systems give importance on the individual to question his own existence and surroundings in order to know, contrary to a sensu al perception of the world. It is important for an individual to know a middle-ground between excess and deficient moral attitudes and characters in order to fully realize the illusions brought about by materialistic objects.Wilful ignorance poses a problem on the understanding of true knowledge since there is no courage to face new objects or truths. Both philosophers mention a certain level of difficulty in attaining virtue or intellectual illumination. It is then necessitated in the individual to fulfil such roles and break out-of-door from the ignorant perception of illusionary objects and to find a greater purpose in life. These finite states of worldly objects always posses a cycle of unending pain and only through a mediated understanding of happiness is when man can break away from such trivial cycle and achieve a complete state of understanding.