Category: Aristotle

Introduction

For a very long time Aristotles book Physics had a profound effect on the development of natural science. This paper is aimed at discussing his views on the tasks of a natural philosopher. Moreover, it is necessary to evaluate its applicability to modern science. One of the key arguments that he makes is that nature has a purpose and that it does act spontaneously or by chance (Aristotle, 39). In his opinion, a natural philosopher has to take this issue into consideration and try to ascertain this purpose or final cause.

Nonetheless one should not assume that Aristotle held the belief that nature was created by some intelligent designer or higher power which imposes pattern of development. According to him, purposefulness is inherent to nature, and that is controlled from outside. This claim may seem rather controversial to contemporary scientists and it is vital for us to understand why this claim gives rise to disputes.

Aristotles view on the tasks of a natural philosopher

Aristotle argues that that a physicist must know the nature as a doctor must know sinew or the smith bronze (i. e .,until he understands the purpose of each (Aristotle, 29). In this case, the word purpose should be understood as something for the sake of which a thing is done (Aristotle 30). It is worth mentioning that when Aristotle speaks about nature, he does not necessarily refers to the entire universe; this concept should be interpreted as any entity or physical phenomenon which has such characteristic as matter and form.

However, the most important attribute of nature is propensity to change such as growth or decrease, alteration, or change in place (Aristotle, 20). It is worth mentioning that when Plate speaks about changeability of nature, he mostly refers to form rather than matter. These are the key premises, which underlie his opinions about nature and science.

Therefore, a natural philosopher must understand not only the properties of things but the reasons for their existence. When speaking about the reasons, Aristotle refers to the so-called four causes: 1) material or the matter out of which a thing comes; 2) formal or the arrangement of these material; 3) efficient cause or the reason why a nature changes; 4) final cause which is the aim or purpose of thing (Aristotle, p 28).

Judging from this, one can argue that the task of a natural philosopher is to ascertain each of these causes and , most importantly the final cause. From Aristotles perspective, to know the purpose of nature is the most essential task of a philosopher and his strategies should be subjected to this task. In this book, Aristotle addresses one of the most crucial epistemological questions; he tries to explain what we need to know and how we can assess the depth of our knowledge.

Aristotle draws several examples to explain his claim. One of them is seed; according to Aristotle, its ultimate goal or purpose is to grow into a plant. At this point, we need to point out that Aristotle regards natural transformations as some limited series of events rather than an incessant cycle.

This assumption lies at the core of his natural philosophy. To some degree this means that the purpose of nature is an ultimate stage of its development. Thus, one cannot claim to know nature or natural phenomenon, to be more exact, unless he/she can indentify its ultimate purpose or final cause. This is how Aristotle views the goals that a natural philosopher should try to achieve.

In Physics, he does not tell whether this goal is always attainable and whether it is necessary. At this point, we can argue that in this book Aristotle sets the standards of knowing and unknowing. It is even possible to say that this work was intended as guidelines for natural philosophers or scientists.

It has to be admitted that with time passing Aristotle importance as a natural philosopher declined, and many of his argument were later disproved. Nonetheless, his opinions on the role of scientists are still debated in academic community, and it is important for us to determine whether these principles can serve the need of modern science.

The application of Aristotles view to modern science

Aristotles ideas had a very strong influence of natural science, especially in the Middle Ages; however, rapid development of science during the Epoch of Enlightenment rendered some of his ideas irrelevant. One of the most contradicting issues is the search for a purpose or a final cause.

Furthermore, it is possible to say that in some circumstances, a nature can have an infinite number of purposes, especially if we are speaking about the interactions of physical phenomena with each other. In such cases, Aristotles framework of four causes is not longer appropriate.

The third reason is that natures transformation can be perpetual, even as far as form as concerned. This perpetual motion or change makes the very notion of final cause or purpose inapplicable. In the following sections, we will try to explain in more detail why Aristotles ideas cannot be used for by contemporary scholars.

The first problem is that it cannot be readily identified and there are no means of doing it. This is why researchers can say that the role of sciences can be purely descriptive. Such situation can be observed in many natural sciences, for instance, astronomy, zoology, or chemistry. Therefore, one can say that the goals, identified by Aristotle are not feasible, at least nowadays.

Probably, in the future, when technologies will become even more sophisticated, natural scientists will be able to do, but at this point their resources are limited. This is the first reason why Aristotles ideas are not always applicable to the needs of contemporary natural science.

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of establishing the connection between the cause and consequences; but lack of tools and technologies often prevents scientists from doing it. In addition to that, modern science has become very utilitarian; it has to serve some practical needs of people, while Aristotles focus on the final causes seems to be more theoretical. The idea of knowledge for knowledge sake is usually rejected by modern researchers.

Certainly, scholars do not only describe natural phenomenon; they also try to ascertain what kind of functions a natural phenomenon performs, or how it interacts with other phenomenon. Moreover, they do try to trace every stage of its development. Still, Aristotles principles are regarded as valid.

Modern scholars do not reject the idea that nature is developing according to chance or coincidence. This idea runs contrary to the views of this philosopher. In order to identify the final goal of a nature, one has to clearly see the pattern of its development. In many cases, it is hardly possible.

The example of such a science is meteorology or the study of atmosphere. Therefore, we can argue that the standards set by Aristotle cannot always be met. Again, we have to stress the point that contemporary science does dismiss the importance of chance, while Aristotles argument largely rely on the idea that there is a certain governing pattern. Thus, this fact can undermine Aristotles model of four causes and ultimate purpose.

One should not suppose that inapplicability of Aristotle principles can be explained only by lack of technologies or tools. Another reason why the views of this philosopher are not tenable in modern day science is that almost every natural phenomenon may have multiple final causes or purposes.

For instance, Aristotle argues that the ultimate goal of a seed is to transform into a plant (22); however, one can object to this claim by saying that its purpose is to be eaten either by animals or human beings. In other words, its ultimate goal may be to become just another link in food chain. This is one of the cases which illustrates that a natural phenomenon can have several final causes and purposes, especially if we look at its interactions with other natural phenomena.

As it has been said before, Aristotle believes that the key attribute of nature is changeability and the last stage of transformation will be the last final cause or purpose. However, one should take into account that changes, occurring in nature, are cyclical. For instance, we can refer to the hydraulic cycle which describes the movement of water which can exist as liquid, ice or vapor. This chain of transformations is infinite and it serves an infinite number of purposes.

By applying Aristotles approach, one can single out thousands of purposes or final causes. This example proves why Aristotles views on natural science are not suitable for the needs of modern scientists. This discussion should not be perceived as complete dismissal of Aristotles work. Epistemological questions raised by this philosopher still remain relevant for modern scholars; however, his interpretation of a scientists role does not seem to fit the needs of contemporary natural science.

Conclusion

Overall, in his book Physics Aristotle attempted to develop research methods that a natural philosopher or a scientist should use. He set the objectives which must be attained by scholars. In his discussion Aristotle focuses on the functions which a nature fulfills.

Yet, modern scholars do not always try to adhere to his principles. It can be explained by several facts: lack of methods that can identify the final cause. The second reason is that natural phenomena may have a large number of final causes or purposes. Thus, Aristotles model of four causes may not be acceptable for the needs of modern natural scientists.

Naturally, Aristotles ideas cannot be taken for granted by modern scientists, but his boos Physics can still be regarded as an important milestone in the development of natural science. It posed some of those questions, which scientists continuously try to answer, and it provided a powerful stimulus to the development of natural philosophy because it asked natural philosophers very important questions about the nature of knowledge.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Physics. Trans. Hardie R. and Gaye R. NuVision Publications, LLC. 2007. Print.

Science can be regarded as an everlasting research of every aspect of the universe. People have been working out various theories since pre-historic times. It may seem that there can be only one truth, so only one theory has the right to exist. However, Kuhn (1970) explains the abundance of various theories by the peculiarity of peoples perception.

Thus, if there are no explicit and definite facts people describe and interpret the same phenomena in different ways (Kuhn, 1970, p. 17). The theories were later developed into paradigms which became the basis of numerous studies and further research.

The development of a paradigm is quite a lasting and complicated process. It includes facts accumulation and interpretation, and implementation of various experiments aimed at justifying the paradigm. As has been mentioned above people often explain the same phenomena differently, so many paradigms emerge.

Nevertheless, only few of them become more successful (accepted by the majority) than many others. Kuhn (1970) gives a simple explanation of a paradigm success by defining it as a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples (p.23-24).

In other words successful paradigm is a scope of theories and facts which can be proved within some limited field. These paradigms usually suggest that there are certain facts (gaps in the theories) which cannot be proved because they pertain to another field of science, or these gaps are not worth proving at all.

These imperfections of paradigms can be regarded as dark sides of knowledge which do not deserve attention. However, these gaps are, on the contrary, the greatest stimuli of further development. For instance, many scientists trying to fill in the gap often open up new horizons for science developing new more complete paradigms. Kuhn (1970) claims that these discoveries bring some subtle changes or even can become revolutionary. There are many examples of such scientific revolutions.

One of the brightest examples of revolutionary discovery is the development of heliocentric paradigm by Copernicus. Many non-scientists assume that Copernicuss heliocentric theory is absolutely innovative. However, Copernicus discovery was based on the knowledge accumulated by Aristotle and other ancient thinkers (Africa, 1961, p. 404). In fact, the development of the entire heliocentrism can be regarded as a conventional illustration of the Kuhns paradigm theory.

Aristotles paradigm of the place of the Earth and other planets was closely connected with their motion and their orbits. However, this paradigm was mathematically imperfect containing many discrepancies and many gaps. Thus, Aristotle depicted planets orbits and portrayed their motion in the universe focusing on logic more than pure mathematics. Aristotle logically proved that the Earth must be in the centre due to certain facts and observations.

Nevertheless, his paradigm was not based on substantial mathematic calculations. This was a stimulus to fill in the gap in the paradigm which was generally accepted in the Middle Ages.

Basically, Copernicus filled in the gap in the successful paradigm and developed a new one based on more thorough research. Copernicus did not try show that the heliostatic hypothesis was mathematically absurd (Elton, 1990, p.435). Copernicus studied many theories, which enabled him to notice the discrepancies in Aristotles paradigm.

For instance, Copernicus focused on the mathematical calculations rather than accepted theory. The great astronomer was not going to refute the universal truth, since at that time heliocentrism was regarded as the only true model of the universe which coincided with the medieval world view (Clutton-Brock, 2005, p. 208). In fact, he was trying to fill in the gap.

He calculated that Aristotles model is incorrect since the orbits of planets located in that way would intersect. Copernicus continued his research and developed a new model of the universe which contradicted Aristotles paradigm since the Earth was not the centre, but one of the planets moving around the Sun.

Of course, his new paradigm was not generally accepted since it opposed the core principle of Aristotles paradigm (that the Earth was the centre of the universe) which was suitable for the Church and agreed with the medieval world view. However, later additional facts enabled other scientists to prove the correctness of Copernicuss paradigm.

Regarding the development of Copernicuss paradigm in terms of Kuhns theory it s possible to point out that as any other new paradigm it was based on the old one to great extent, so it had a lot in common. For instance, both paradigms (Aristotles geostatic universe and Copernicuss heliostatic universe) shared the same assumption that the planets were moving around one object. Thus, Aristotle regarded all heavenly objects as material objects characterized by motion.

The planets (according to Aristotle) had their definite orbits. As far as Copernicuss paradigm is concerned, the planets were also moving in certain order having their own orbits. The major difference was in calculations and the order of planets. Aristotle placed the Earth in the centre with other planets (and the Sun) moving around it. Whereas, Copernicus calculated that the Earth could not be the centre since the orbits of the planets would intersect.

Thus, Copernicus agreed with the core principle of Aristotles paradigm about the planetary motion, but noticed certain gaps and uncertainties in the generally accepted theory.

This fits the theory of the development of new paradigms and the development of science. Copernicus would not assumed that the Earth was the centre of the universe and would not develop the model of the universe which is generally accepted and proven nowadays, if he did not have the necessary knowledge about the motion of the planets and the existence of such phenomenon as the planets orbit.

On balance, it is possible to conclude that the development of Copernicuss theory of heliocentric universe became possible due to the conflict of the core paradigms of Copernicus and Aristotle. Copernicus researched discrepancies of the existing generally accepted paradigm, Aristotles geocentric universe.

Copernicus took into account many other theories, facts and assumptions. Basically, the background of his revolutionary paradigm was the old one. Copernicus admitted that the planets move, but calculated that they had other positions in the universe. Thus, the imperfection of Aristotles paradigm (its mathematical incompleteness) became the reason of further research which resulted in Copernicuss heliocentric theory.

On a final note, it is necessary to point out that this is the conventional example of development of science considered by Kuhn. The theories form new paradigms which lead to new facts and assumptions. Fortunately, people notice imperfections in others work and are eager to correct the mistakes and fill in the gaps. This is the universal rule of development: people reveal new facets of something which is already known.

Reference List

Africa, T. W. (1961). Copernicus Relation to Aristarchus and Pythagoras. Isis, 52(3), 403-409.

Clutton-Brock, M. (2005). Copernicuss Path to His Cosmology: An Attempted Reconstruction. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 36(123), 197-216.

Elton, G.R. (Ed.). (1990). The New Cambridge Modern History. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Introduction

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that a good life is the one driven by reason. To substantiate this assertion, the philosopher introduces the concept of virtues as placed between two extremes, comparable to a popular notion of moderation. The following paper analyzes the concepts above to determine the applicability of Aristotelian ethics to the real-life situations of the contemporary world.

Philosophical Perspective

To understand the connection established by Aristotle between a good life and a rational one, it is first necessary to discuss the concept of good used in the Nicomachean Ethics. The first important point is the concept of the highest good as viewed from the individual perspective. Aristotle started by criticizing the most common approach, which presumed that the highest good was related to the pursuit of material pleasures, accumulation of material wealth, or obtaining an honorable status in society.

Despite the popularity of these categories, each of them is deficient in a certain way. For instance, honorable status is not determined by the traits of an individual  instead, it is based on the perceived qualities and characteristics. In the same manner, material wealth is considered an intermediary for obtaining other goods or services, and the pursuit of bodily pleasures is common for the majority of living beings, devaluating them as feasible determinants of human life.

The latter is especially important since it contains a key determinant of the concept of the good life, namely the consistency with the process of self-improvement. Specifically, life can be considered good when the individual actively increases his or her faculties pertinent to human beings. In other words, a good life should be lived by human virtues. Also, the actions responsible for the improvement in question need to have a conscious origin, which can be defined as the ability to act based on the predicted value of the outcome. The important distinction to mention here is the difference between human beings and animals, which, according to the philosopher, can be defined as the reason or the capacity for conscious decision-making.

Based on these arguments, Aristotle concluded that to live a good life, human beings should be able to identify the reasons behind their actions. By extension, reason can be identified through the conscious learning process, acquisition of new knowledge, or intellectual virtues. In the broadest sense, the said virtues are consistent with what is currently defined as scientific knowledge and are obtained mostly in the same manner. The virtues can be grouped into two categories: virtues obtained by contemplating fundamental natural laws and principles, and those acquired through inference, or application of these principles to physical reality, and observation.

However, it is necessary to specify that the described process is insufficient for the development of the virtues. Thus, a person needs to act by the concepts of the highest good and engage in a relentless process of self-improvement. As a result of these actions, the person is expected to develop the character traits necessary for performing these actions regularly. In contrast to intellectual virtues, which can be obtained through the process of learning, the character traits can only be developed through habituation and derived from life experience.

These virtues include temperance, courage, and generosity, among others. Understandably, the development of these traits requires considerable time and effort. Aristotle pointed out that despite the necessity to develop the traits, they can be easily recognized by the untrained individuals, or those less proficient in the matters. Thus, he concluded that there is a certain capacity for improvement pertinent to humans. However, he also specified that the predisposition to being more or less moral is unlikely and, therefore, the capacity for virtues is universal. By extension, all humans have certain moral responsibilities that should be upheld through conscious action.

The attainment of intellectual and character virtues allows the individual to reach the state of eudaimonia, which was used by Aristotle to denote good life and can be roughly translated as happiness. Eudaimonia is viewed as a fulfilling state that is desirable regardless of the individual preferences and allows for flourishing existence. Therefore, it is possible to assume that it can be both comprehended and sought after by any rational individual. Simply put, the desire for eudaimonia is rational. By extension, all of the virtues that serve as its prerequisites and are thus necessary for achieving it are to be viewed as rational as well.

The idea of the existence of a single Good as the ultimate goal is derived from Aristotles statement that every kind of inquiry and, by extension, every purposeful act aims at some good goal. To validate the connection between these statements, it is necessary to determine the meaning of the word good as used in the text. In the broadest sense, an action is considered good when it satisfies a certain benevolent need.

By extension, the fact of satisfaction can also be viewed as good when it is beneficial for a more encompassing purpose, or a greater good. This chain of reasoning can be extended to include a certain number of links. However, due to the finite nature of human actions, it would be unreasonable to suggest that it can be extended indefinitely. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that at some point the sequence will reach a state where the goal in question does not lead to the next level but is the final purpose of the initial act. This highest purpose can be considered the ultimate goal at which everything aims.

This conclusion confirms the possibility of a finite amount of goals. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily disprove the existence of several paths, which can be pursued simultaneously and lead to different kinds of ultimate goals.

To eliminate this possibility, it would be necessary to imagine such a scenario. For instance, it is possible to imagine a situation where a person considers healthy living and philanthropy two equally desirable goals. In this case, the actions of the individual will be driven by the necessity to comply with two sets of values. It is probable that in some cases, the actions may satisfy both sets. However, it is far more likely that they will only be relevant to one of the perspectives.

As a result, the individual will have to decide which of the actions to prioritize at the expense of the other. Alternatively, some actions will oppose one of the principles, in which case a decision would be required to either proceed with the action or abandon it. Understandably, these considerations will require considerable effort to conclude. However, if such a conclusion can be made on a rational basis, it is then possible to assume that one of the pathways was unnecessary in the first place.

Also, the dispersion of time and effort required for prioritizing cannot be considered a reasonable action. Such a line of behavior is unacceptable for a rational individual, and since it has been established that reason is a necessary component of happiness or good life, it would be logical to dismiss this argument and accept a single goal as the most plausible concept. Interestingly, such a line of thinking also offers an ethical advantage of streamlining the decision-making process by dismissing the options that are incompatible with the concept of a single universal good.

An important point in understanding the concept of virtue is the observance of the mean. According to Aristotle, human actions can be measured for consistency using certain criteria of order and proportion. In the case of virtues, these characteristics can be understood as placed the axis. For a person to achieve excellence in a certain virtue, it has to be placed in its center. On one side of the axis is what Aristotle termed a deficiency  the inability to demonstrate or exercise the desired trait.

On the other side of the spectrum is the excess of the same virtue, which supposedly negates its positive effect. In this sense, the ability to maintain middle ground between insufficient and excessive-performance characterizes the behavior in question as virtuous, whereas the deviation in any direction can be characterized as vicious. For example, a person is considered courageous when he or she can tolerate the risk associated with a certain action.

When the said person avoids such situations, the behavior indicates the deficiency of courage, which can be interpreted as consistent with the vice of cowardliness. On the other hand, someone who jumps into action without considering the possible consequences demonstrates an excess of courage or rashness. From this standpoint, it is reasonable to compare the notion of mean between the extremes to the one of moderation. Both concepts involve the axis that contains the most favorable outcome in the middle and treat the deviations as undesirable.

A good example of contemporary virtues would be temperance or a mean between pleasure and pain. The deficiency, in this case, would be an overindulgence in bodily pleasures, such as overeating. On the other hand, overly strict diets, as well as a deliberate avoidance of tasty food, will constitute excess. Finally, a healthy and reasonably balanced diet, which limits but does not exclude sugar-rich products would be the mean between these extremes.

In this case, the motive would be the satisfaction of bodily pleasures. Another example would be attention to physical appearance. In this case, someone who focuses on it at the expense of personal integrity engages in vanity, which is the vice of excess. On the other hand, a person who neglects it to the extent where it contradicts accepted social norms engages in vulgarity or the deficiency of the virtue. In this case, the desire to have an appealing look is the motive behind the extremes.

Conclusion

As can be seen, the ethical concepts laid out by Aristotle are relevant in the contemporary world. First, they offer an accessible approach based on a recognizable arithmetical model of the bi-directional axis, which can be used to communicate them to the audience and apply to real-world situations. In this regard, they are compatible with the popular and widely used concept of moderation. Also, they combine simplicity with flexibility, leaving space for decision-making in complex ethical and moral situations.

One of the most significant differences between Plato and Aristotle is their perception and view of the ethics theory (Thomas, 345). They both agree that injustice cannot outdo justice but differ in their expression of this virtue. The two philosophers agree that every entity has its function. There are specific virtues related to the carrying out of various functions. According to Plato, the functioning of every human being is closely linked to the entire society.

This means that, for a society to be virtuous, then every individual must perform their function in a just way. For Aristotle, the function of humans is an independent phenomenon. This function should express reason in the pursuit of happiness, which is the ultimate goal of every individual. Therefore, the major difference here is that for Plato, the function of every individual is to improve the entire society, while for Aristotle, it is to express the reason for the pursuit of individual happiness. It is not related to society.

Works Cited

Thomas, H, G. A Brief History of the Western World. California: Wadsworth Publishers, 2004. 140-407.

The study of emotions has attracted the attention of many philosophers and scholars in various fields. There has been an attempt to have a clear definition of the events that take place within the mind before one gets emotional. As Evans (56) notes, emotions involve the feelings developed when one is subjected to a given environment. Some of the greatest philosophers who dedicated their time to the study emotions include Epicurus and Aristotle.

The two philosophers studied emotions to determine some of the common causes of this mental state, and the events that take place in the mind before one becomes emotional. In this study, the researcher will analyze emotions in light of Epicurus, Stoicism, and Aristotles writings.

Epicurus View of Emotion

Epicurus analyzed emotions from the perspective of the presence or absence of suffering. As Rolls (57) notes, Epicurus argued that emotions would largely be considered as the presence of happiness or suffering. An individual who is experiencing any form of suffering would be sad. Sadness as emotion would be as a result of the absence of pleasure.

This philosopher argued that pleasure and suffering are two extremes that can never be experienced at the same time with equal measures. If an individual is exposed to factors that bring pleasure and suffering at the same time, one of the two will dominate the other.

The pleasure can be so great that it becomes easy to ignore the suffering. In such a case, an individual would remain happy even in the presence of suffering. Conversely, the pain can be so great that it becomes easier to ignore the presence of pleasure. In this case, an individual would be sad despite the presence of pleasure.

In society, the two extremes of emotion will always be presented to an individual at every stage in life. According to Epicurus, an individual would always find himself in the face of pleasure or pain. In some rare occasions, one may not have control over which of the two factors he or she would face. However, it is most of the occasions, one would have the capacity to choose between the two.

One may choose to suffer as a way of generating more pleasure in the future. For instance, when an individual is presented with an amount of money that is way beyond the current needs, he may choose to spend the money in leisure or invest it in business. At that particular moment, the choice of investing the money would bring suffering. That individual would be forced to dedicate his or her time and energy to the new project.

On the other hand, if an individual decides to spend the money, he would get pleasure. The pleasure would be spent in many ways depending on the way that an individual chooses to use the money.

However, the two individuals would be considered to view the emotional satisfaction of money from two different perspectives. While the inventor envisions a bigger pleasure in future when the investment becomes profitable, the other individual sees immediate pleasure as the most appropriate.

Although the definition of Epicurus of pleasure as an absence of suffering has been considered as an insight into the study of emotions, some contemporary scholars have rejected this reasoning, describing it shallow. Evans (90) says that there can be instances where one lacks any strong sense of happiness or sadness. For this reason, it would be improper to argue that at one moment in time, one must experience either of the two emotional feelings.

Stoicisms Perspective of Emotions

Stoics are known to have conducted extensive research on emotions, and their works have been subject of study among various scholars who have researched in this field. According to this school of thought, emotions can be classified as either constructive or destructive. This school of thought holds that emotions can be considered constructive if it brings development or any form of benefit to society.

For instance, when one feels happy and motivated, that emotion will be constructive, because the activity that will be delegated to such an individual would be done excellently. On the other hand, emotions can be considered destructive if it can motivate violent reactions or any other destructive behavior. Most of the stoic analysis of emotions were based on their destructive nature.

According to Rolls (79), stoicism school of thought holds that destructive emotions are always as a result of judgment errors. This scholar elaborates on this by stating that some of the destructive emotions such as anger are always as a result of an error in judgment in the mind of an individual. The mind is a very powerful tool that always dictates our actions. In some cases, the mind would make some judgments over some issues that are not factual.

For instance, when a parent is convinced that one of his or her children is careless, any damage that takes place in the house will always be blamed on that particular child, and all the anger will be directed to it. Basing his reasoning on Stoicism, Evans (78) explains that emotions can always be controlled, especially if it is destructive.

Aristotles Perspective of Emotions

Aristotle is one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived. His philosophical works covered many areas, including emotional thoughts within the human mind. According to Aristotle, emotions are aroused by some of the activities that take place within the environment. Both positive and negative emotions are triggered by an individuals experiences.

Happiness will always be a result of the positive experience that one has in the external or internal environment (Rolls 56). The external environment, in this case, refers to activities outside ones body or mind. The internal environment is all the activities that take place in ones mind or any part of the body. Depending on the experiences that one has with the environment, the emotion can be pleasant or painful.

Aristotle argued that it is our ethical responsibility to develop a positive response to our emotions. For instance, when one is faced with the emotions of fear, it would be his or her responsibility to develop courage. Similarly, when one is overwhelmed with desire, he or she should have the virtue of controlling such desires to avoid affecting the emotions of others negatively.

Conclusion

Emotion is always determined by ones state of mind. Different scholars have tried to explain emotions in different ways to express different things. In his analysis of emotions, Epicurus argued that happiness is a sign of a lack of suffering. Stoicism school of thought classified emotions as either constructive or destructive. Aristotle argued that one should always be able to control his or her emotions to remain ethical.

Works Cited

Evans, Dylan. Emotion: The Science of Sentiment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.

Rolls, Edmund. Emotion Explained. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Introduction

The ideologies of philosophers have influenced the world and changed the perception and attitudes of people toward various issues. Aristotle is one of the greatest philosophers who lived. Although various philosophers have contributed to knowledge and promoted philosophical thinking, Aristotles ideologies can be connected to practically every aspect of life.

He became a great scholar after making significant contributions to various subjects of human existence. The peculiarity and popularity of Aristotles philosophy of life makes it easy for it to be included in various aspects of life. For example, Aristotles philosophies can be used to define and inspire the ethical operations of business organizations. This essay examines Aristotles ideas about civic relationships, happiness, justice, deliberation, friendship and the virtues and compares them with real-life business practices and the experiences shared through Great Place to Work, a website that analyzes the great workplaces.

Aristotles Civic Ideas

Aristotles philosophy comprises a collection of civic ideologies that apply to real-life activities. These civic responsibilities guide all aspects of livelihood. This section of the essay highlights some of Aristotles civic ideologies that can be attributed to ethical practices in business. Happiness, justice, friendship, and virtues are some ideologies highlighted by Aristotle that influence business ethics.

Happiness

Aristotles ideology posits that happiness is achieved when an individual is living a healthy and affordable life (Aristotle 3). People must not have everything to be happy. Instead happiness is achieved when they get what they need to satisfy their present and future needs. Modern philosophers still hold this view and believe most people are not happy because they do not know what they need.

They claim that people focus on getting everything they want, and this deprives them of happiness. Aristotle argued that happiness is inborn, and an individual has the responsibility of generating it (Aristotle 9). Happiness is derived from activities that intrigue people. Aristotle defined happiness as the central purpose and an end for all human activities. Therefore, happiness is a state of mind that cannot be achieved through money or fame, but the psychological satisfaction that an individual is contented with what is available to sustain life (Aristotle 17).

Justice

Justice is another civic ideology developed by Aristotle. From Aristotles perspective, justice should be based on the character of an individual and not society (Aristotle 78). Therefore, justice concerns the behavior and motives that drive individuals do things they perceive to satisfy society. Aristotle argued that most people pretend to seek justice, yet their mission is to gain political power and become leaders. Such people take advantage of the publics ignorance for selfish interests. Therefore, not all individual who engage in activism satisfy the required standards for upright and ethical citizens.

Aristotle explains that, non-prolific people are a serious setback for justice in the society because they rely on the effort and ignorance of others for personal gains (Aristotle 83). He believed people should get what they work for and deserve because relying on others for financial, social or political benefits is injustice. Consequently, he suggested that people should get what is proportional to their input and those who work hard should earn more than lazy ones.

Furthermore, Aristotle advises that laws should set standards and ensure equality exists among peers and not all people. Finally, he recommends that the state should protect all people from the injustice that results from corruption, greed, discrimination, poverty and other social perils (Aristotle 91).

Friendship

Another significant philosophy of Aristotle was the importance of friendship. Aristotle perceived humans as social animals who could not exist without interacting with other people. He argued that it was unnatural for people to live in isolation and experience happiness (Aristotle 34). This ideology was derived from the observation that people were always working hard to increase their network of friendship.

This aspect highlights the importance of social relationships in ensuring that people live happily. Consequently, he explored the role of the bond between two people in instilling virtues that support relationships by resisting the challenges of discrimination and injustice (Aristotle 33). Aristotle explained that friendship could be based on utility, pleasure, or virtue.

According to Aristotles elucidation, utility friendship occurs when people form bonds that enable them to help each other (Aristotle 34) while pleasure relationships occur when they derive joy in doing something together. Pleasure friendships are a source of short-term relationships because people become exhausted and bored. Aristotle believes true friendship should be based on love, virtue, and mutual respect and not pleasure or material gain.

This relationship is common among adults because they understand their needs and respect each other. However, most young people are selfish and their relationships are driven by pleasure or utility. Aristotle argued that relationships should be between two adults that understand their needs and know what is right or wrong for them thus, people should not form bonds that do not benefit them (Aristotle 36).

Virtues

Aristotle argued that virtue and ethics were different and inexplicable by scientific theories. Consequently, he suggested that the study of virtue was aimed at improving human life and ensuring the coexistence of humans (Aristotle 23). Virtues are behaviors that influence peoples morality and help them make independent decisions. Ethics, on the other hand, are standards that assess the appropriateness of human actions. Aristotle believed virtues and values were complex social, rational and emotional skills that facilitated the coexistence of individuals notwithstanding their sociocultural variations.

Therefore, virtuous individuals were respectable in the society because they did not condone bad behavior (Aristotle 28). Aristotle argued that people gained ethical behavior and virtues from other members of the society. Consequently, he suggested that people should not analyze subjects as right or wrong based on the understanding of their needs (Aristotle 33) but based on the factors including wealth, justice, friendship, virtues and ethics.

Aristotles Civic Ideas in the Real Work Environment

Aristotles views on civic relationships are evident in the policies and practices of most organizations. The relationship between Aristotles principles and the proposed ethical practices for business organizations can be seen by reviewing the activities of successful business organizations.

The Great Place to Work institute has a website that offers numerous articles and reviews of business practices characteristic to real-life successful business organizations. The website argues that the best places to work have important aspects that motivate employees and managers to do their best and improve productivity. Their practices go beyond the routine guidelines stated by the policies and traditions of an organization. For instance, the institute claims that there is a difference between what companies do and how their leaders adopt various approaches to doing things.

Organizations that have the best practices, generous salaries, and less work-related stress do not guarantee employees satisfaction. The institute agrees that policies and programs are essential for all organizations because they guide employees to achieve their objectives. In addition, they guide managers to align various resources with the organizations mission.

According to this institute, it is the implementation of these policies and practices that make organizations succeed or fail in achieving their missions. Most organizations have good and effective systems that may propel them to success but their managers are ineffective because they do not know how to align company policies with the available resources.

This section of the paper provides a summary of some articles posted on the Great Place to Work website that focus on the productivity of different companies organizations and the factors that influence their success. The dynamics of productivity in these companies are compared to Aristotles civic ideologies. The presence of Aristotles ideologies in these companies organizational culture will indicate significance his philosophies in business practice.

Aristotles Happiness in the Real Business Environment

Happiness is one of Aristotles most important ideologies and refers to the psychological satisfaction that an individual is contented with what is available to sustain life (Aristotle 17). In business practices, an employee must be satisfied and contented to sustain work activities. The importance of happiness for ethical business practices is acknowledged by Zappos (Hsieh par. 1). Zappos understands the importance of happiness and directs all organizational practices toward promoting happiness for employees and customers (Hsieh par. 2).

The CEO of the company explains the aim of Zappos is to deliver happiness for workers and consumers (Hsieh par. 2). Zappos imbibes the culture of happiness from its recruitment process by giving entree employees the opportunity to quit during the training process and receive payment for the spent time and an extra $2,000 (Hsieh par. 3). Through this, new employees are offered an exclusive opportunity of making informed choices concerning their happiness and ability to be fully committed to the company.

Aristotles Justice in the Real Business Environment

Aristotles suggests that justice should be based on the character and actions of an individual and not the society (Aristotle 78). Consequently, from Aristotles perspective, the laws guiding people should differ and depend on the individuals personalities. The application of this ideology is obvious in successful business organizations, which create reward systems based on the performance and actions of the employees. For example, Infusionsoft, a fast-growing marketing and distribution software company in Arizona uses various forms of incentives for employees that outperform others and conform to company standards.

For example, the employee of the month is entitled to a dinner and allowed to drive the companys car for one month. Infusionsoft also gives awards for top innovators, outstanding customer support, and rewards for promptness.

The companys approach indicates the utilization of Aristotles ideology of justice in business ethics. Although all employees are paid regular wages during payment periods, those who outperform others derive extra benefits. The business practice of rewarding employees for their individual achievements reflects Aristotles ideology that justice is achieved when laws are based on individuals personalities (Honorable Mention for Employee Recognition par. 1).

Aristotles Friendship in the Real Business Environment

Aristotles friendship ideology also plays an important role in business ethics. He explains that people are social animals and cannot exist alone. Aristotle believes it will impossible for people to exhibit the ideology of happiness if they are isolated (Aristotle 33). Consequently, people must make friends and interact with others to live well (that is, to be happy). Various real-life business systems support this ideology. The impact of social media on job satisfaction and employee productivity has been highlighted.

Employees reported that they enjoyed collaborative working environments that include communication through e-mails, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn (Groman par. 2). The inclusion of Aristotles ideology of friendship is further indicated as employee diversity for improved organizational productivity. Business organizations are advised to ethically promote workforce diversity to enjoy the benefits of business globalization. The workforce of a global organization performs better when the workforce comprises individuals from different sociocultural backgrounds (Gorman par. 1) and this shows that people yearn for broader friendship.

Aristotles Virtues in the Real Business Environment

Aristotles describes virtues as behaviors that make people moral and able to make independent decisions while ethics are standards that measure the appropriateness of human action. Virtues are explained to influence the abilities of employees and leaders to conform to business ethics. Courage, humor, humility, and honesty and virtues identified by Aristotle and they play various roles in promoting business ethics.

Business leaders need to be courageous to pursue ethical business practices against their interests (Erb par. 1). Companies, such as Atlassian, understand the importance of ethical integrating humor with their culture. Atlassian uses humorous swearwords to create an open working environment for employees (Atlassian: #7 Best Medium Workplaces par. 3). Employees enjoy this friendly approach of business, which enables them to work rigorously in a flexible environment (Atlassian: #7 Best Medium Workplaces par. 2).

Conclusion

This paper reviewed Aristotles ideologies and compared their relationship with ethical business practices. Aristotles views on civic relationships are evident in the policies and practices of most organizations. The analyzed ideologies show that happiness is not influenced by tangible resources but by the inherent perceptual dynamics of individuals.

This ideology is apparent in business practice where organizations that create lasting and trustworthy relationship with their employees and consumers are perceived to be ethical. Furthermore, justice is achieved in organizations when they offer healthy working environments for employees by enforcing strict human resources policies. The role of justice in the business environment is seen in how much employee motivation can be influenced by equality and fairness.

Aristotles suggestion that people work hard to achieve happiness is accurate. It may also be argued that managers and employees can deliberate on contentious issues and find solutions that will improve their relationships. Thus, workers should be treated equally and respected to improve their work rate and enhance organizational productivity.

Aristotles ideologies are closely related to the dynamics of modern day business practices. The comparative review of Aristotles ideologies and real-life business experiences show that ethical business practices are related to philosophical ideologies. Aristotles ideologies considered in the paper indicate strong connection with current business practices.

Successful companies across different industries employ Aristotles philosophies to improve team work, consumer satisfaction, employee reception, and organizational efficiency. Thus, his philosophical ideas form the core of common organizational cultures. Managers and executives that are proactive should create a culture that is hinged on Aristotles ideologies.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999. Print.

Atlassian: #7 Best Medium Workplaces 2014. Web.

Erb, Meg 2011, Courage to be Great, Web.

Gorman, Charlene 2015, Use of Technology at Work: Counter-intuitive Findings. Web.

Gorman, Charlene 2015, Why Diverse Organizations Perform Better: Do We Still Need Evidence? Web.

Honorable Mention for Employee Recognition 2012. Web.

Hsieh, Tim 2011, How Zappos Creates Happy Customers and Employees. Web.

Ideas on Free Will

Free will has become the subject for reflection of numerous outstanding philosophers, who have affected the worldview of thousands of followers. Their understanding of this phenomenon differs due to the epochs they lived in and personal convictions. This paper will present the ideas of Aristotle and Lucretius through the prism of comparing and contrasting their opinions.

Aristotle believes that free will is a combination of all voluntary actions. He draws the line between voluntary and involuntary doings claiming that everything influenced by an inward desire of an individual is a voluntary action while everything done under the outward will of others or from ignorance is considered involuntary. In addition to it, if a person limits his or her actions by emotions or social norms, they are also involuntary (Aristotle 4).

Lucretius, on the other hand, views free will compare it to the movement of atoms. The philosopher says that every action having place under the influence of the external force is not a free will, which comes from the inner desire and motivation of an individual (Lucretius 18).

To sum up, both Aristotle and Lucretius agree that free will is always linked to a persons inward desire instead of outward request or order. They also agree that there are no occasions, which would turn involuntary action into a voluntary one because only individuals determine what is better for them. Both authors view free will studying the laws of nature. However, Lucretius compares it to the movement of atoms, which is impossible to alter in response to ones desire, while Aristotle focuses on the rules adopted by human society and the phenomena of power and authority.

Analysis of Logans Run

Most people agree with Plato, who believes that the picture of the world is determined by an individuals personal experience. This notion was developed in his allegory of the cave. The central idea is the existence of the cave full of fettered people, whose heads are fixed forward and who cannot get out of it because they are imprisoned forever. All they can see is the casting of shadows on the walls of the cave.

These shadows become the foundation for perceiving reality. However, Plato raises the question: what would happen if one of the prisoners managed to escape? Evidently, the real world and bright light of the sun would astonish him because he would not believe that everything seen before was unreal. Returning to the cave, he will be rich with the new knowledge, but other prisoners will laugh at him because their reality is still connected to shadows on the walls (Haymond 6-7).

The allegory of the cave inspired numerous fiction stories. The brightest example is Logans Run. Instead of the cave, the directors portray the domed city inhabited by young and beautiful people, who are renewed once reaching the age of thirty. Logan works as a sandman, i.e. a person, who kills those over thirty years old. As he escapes from the city, he finds an old man, who reveals the truth that the promoted renewal is death. As Logan returns to living in society, he desires to let others know about his discovery, but people think that he is insane. It means that Platos story and Logans Run are identical.

Moreover, the movie is a portrayal of free will. The motivation for taking this standpoint is the fact that Logan has chosen to run and get away from the system regardless of the established rules. His decision to come back and reveal the truth was voluntary, i.e. driven by inner motivation. That said, it falls within Aristotles apprehension of free will.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Free Will. Ed. Derk Pereboom. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009. 1-4. Print.

Haymond, Bryce. A Modern Worldview from Platos Cave. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2008. Print.

Lucretius. Free Will. Ed. Derk Pereboom. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009. 17-18. Print.

Morality and politics are two subjects that have been widely debated. In the Politics, Aristotle describes the relationship between communities and politics. Aristotle believes that morality and politics should always go together (Aristotle, 198). This is necessary because the two play an important role in promoting a virtuous life. Aristotle believes that leaders should never consider the political activity as a practice aimed at pursuing our personal or societal interests. Instead, he argues that leadership should be an important practice aimed at supporting a good life. That being the case, political activity should always promote morals and values (Aristotle 201). Such morals will ensure there is justice in order to give people their rights.

For a government to be effective, there must be a set of morals and virtues in place to ensure the people are happy. Justice is an important part of morality. According to Aristotle, political leaders should possess virtuous habits and behaviours. There is a need to support certain habits, such as friendship and unity. These habits are attainable through moral legislation. Aristotle also believes that living in a community is a critical component of societal morality. To have social order, there should be a sense of justice and morality (Aristotle, 205).

A political society should exist because of noble actions. This explains why it would be wrong to establish political societies based on mere companionship. Aristotle (205) goes further to state that a society is a union of villages living in self-sufficiency. The people in a society should always be happy. This explains the importance of morality in a political society. With this bold relationship between morals and politics, Aristotles ideas for a community and its relationship with its people continues to inspire many people today (Aristotle 207).

After many centuries, a new law has dominated our world thus changing promoting new political theories. Consequently, Machiavelli introduces an influential theory on politics. The great thinker based his views on Aristotles argument of causes. The outstanding lesson from Machiavelli is that both immorality and morality are important for leaders. This is necessary because the two have their purpose in political agenda and power. Machiavelli believes that not all men should be good (Machiavelli 46). The important thing is for a leader to remain fierce and always wise.

In his work, Machiavelli states clearly that leaders should never deviate from the good. This is the best way for them to remain powerful. As well, he goes further to say leaders should understand how to commit evil deeds whenever it is necessary. Machiavelli goes further to state that politics and morals are two distinct elements. He believes that private morality is necessary because it helps define the character of an individual. Sometimes the virtuous man might place himself at a great disadvantage. This explains why Machiavelli believes that a king or a leader can violate moral codes, especially when the end is justifiable or noble (Machiavelli 65).

The leader, according to Machiavelli, needs to rely on discretion and always remain decisive. This is the only way to become a great ruler. From this analysis, the outstanding fact is that Machiavelli is not against morality or goodness. Instead, he advises leaders and kings to use all means in order to maintain power (Machiavelli 73). This idea is useful for leaders whenever they encounter certain political challenges and obstacles. This explains why, according to Machiavelli, both immorality and morality have their own advantages.

From the above discussion, what comes out clearly is that both Machiavelli and Aristotle explain the importance of the relationship between morals and politics (Machiavelli 142). The emerging issue is whether moral ideas and principles are what should guide leaders. From a personal perspective, I would state clearly that ethical and moral principles should always guide leaders. According to Aristotle, moral principles are essential because they promote a good life. Leadership should always seek to bring happiness to the citizens. This explains why Aristotles political theory considers morality and ethics as two important elements of society.

On the other hand, Machiavelli believes strongly that the goals of a leader are more important than the codes of morality. The importance of the end result is what justifies such immoral ideas and acts. However, this is detestable because it mainly supports the interests of the leader and his society without necessarily considering the position of others in society (Aristotle 198). Such leaders, according to Aristotle, can make better communities. However, chances are high for leaders to become tyrants.

Although it might be hard to have the proper judgment of Aristotles views on morals and politics, his concept of the relationship between societies and individuals is something that inspires modern leaders and philosophers (Aristotle 208). He explains the importance of morality in order to help people understand the importance of good leadership. As well, there is a lot to borrow from Machiavellis concepts in an attempt to promote democracy. This study has widened my knowledge and views on politics and morals. Aristotles political theory presents numerous ideas on the relationship between morality and politics, thus helping leaders establish new societies. This is the best way to provide happiness to the greatest majority.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Politics. Trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Print.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: SoHo Books, 2011. Print.

Introduction

Developing and concretizing Patons doctrine, Aristotle in Politics puts a question on the status of the citizen. Who should be named as a citizen? The persons of a noble origin lay claim on honor in the state, freeborn and paying taxes first of all. Whether is the citizen those by the virtue of where they live? But also slaves and foreigners can live together with the citizens of other state. Those who have the right to be the claimant and the respondent are not citizens because foreigners use such right also.

Only in relative sense it is possible to name the under-aged children, free from duties as citizens. The aged people, passed age limit, also have been released in Athens from execution of civil duties.

Main body

The concept of the citizen can be defined, according to Aristotle, through a principle of participation in court and authority: We consider as citizens those who participate in court and in national assembly (Aristotle, b.III, p.65). This definition corresponds mainly to the citizen of the democratic state. At other kinds of a state system and the citizen should be other.

That citizen is the person who takes part in legislative and judicial authority of the state: We also name the state set of such citizens, sufficient, generally speaking, for self-sufficing existence(Aristotle, b.III, p. 65),  writes Aristotle, not dividing concepts of society and state. So, the access to the state post is the certificate of the civil rights. In practice the citizen is the person whose parents  both father, and mother are considered as citizens, instead of someone one of them.

Anticipating differentiation of human rights and the rights of citizen, issued in the corresponding Declaration of the period of the French revolution of the end of XVIII century, Aristotle is interested by a question  whether the good person can be considered as the efficient citizen? (Aristotle, b.III, P66) In fact the citizen is in the same attitude to the state, as seaman on a vessel  to other crew. The Safe sailing is the purpose for which seamen strive and each of them separately. The same is in relation to citizens. Their problem consists in rescue of dialogue made by them, and this dialogue is the political system. Therefore and civil virtue is inevitably caused by this last (Aristotle, b.III, p.66),  the author of Politics says, already planning the thin distinction between society  dialogue between citizens and society management of a political system. Supporting the political system, the virtuous citizen should possess ability perfectly both to dominate, and to submit. However virtue commanding cannot be peculiar to any citizen as Aristotle specifies. This civil virtue approaches only to those who are relieved of the works necessary for essential livelihood.

So, the citizen is the person who possesses the set of the civil rights. For example, the Athenian citizens had the following honorable rights: the right to borrow a position to be judges; to take part in elections of officials; the right to marry to Athens women; the right of possession of the immovable property; the right to make public sacrifices. In Athens the so-called welcome citizens did not use all set of the rights accepted in number of citizens by virtue of the certain act, i.e. the fulfilling of duties is a parameter of full citizenship. From noted above it is clear, that not any good person is the citizen, but  the citizen only the one who is in the certain attitude to the state life who has or can have powers in business of care about state affairs or individually, or together with others (Aristotle, b.III, p.67).

The citizens form the community because they have much in common, i.e. any measure is equal. The civil oath of Athenians was brought by usually young Athenians after achieving 18. Then Aristotle approaches definition of the state. The smallest parts of the whole state are family, and also colonies of families  settlements where the senior has been invested with authority of tsar. The family is considered as the friendly communication, natural by arisen for satisfaction of daily needs.

Conclusion

The person by the nature is a political essence as appears from the told, and the state belongs to that exists by nature (Aristotle, b.III, p.67). The satisfaction of needs does necessary dialogue between the person and a circle of family, and at the solving the general problems for settlement and the state.

References

Aristotles Politics translated by C.D.C Reeve, ISBN # 0-87220-388-3

The logic of today as construed by the common man is not the same as what is understood by logicians. Logic as understood by Socrates was to some extent influenced by the Pythagoreans since he practiced the dialectic methods in investigating the objectivity and authority of the different propositions.

Plato had further contributed to advancing the dialectic approach to logic in being highly impacted by the Pythagoreans and had further consolidated the basis for geometric evidence and its validity. Plato applied several logical dialogues and principles that were rudimentary. However Platos logical principles often confused the logical principles with metaphysical propositions, but since this was quite normal amongst the Greeks, Plato is not found to be at fault in this regard. As regards Aristotle, understanding of logic is found to have become different from the previous philosophical disciplines. Aristotle created his arguments in philosophy that could have valid inferences drawn and which proved to be highly popular during the 19th and 20th centuries.

The layman of today is yet not able to understand the philosophical notions behind knowledge. Inappropriately being in line with the sophist traditions, Socrates was quite a skeptic and disbeliever since it is difficult to identify his dialectic methods for assessment of the dialogues regarding his ideas of knowledge. This prevented the establishment of positive arguments and in this regard, Socrates is considered to have leveled negative arguments.

Plato is considered to be more articulate in this regard since he considered knowledge to be of immense priority in the World of Ideas. He claimed that knowledge should be understood as being a necessary and true belief because if two people have different opinions, they cannot both be true. Anything wrong cannot be called an entity of knowledge. Plato believed that ones experience of a material thing cannot be taken as knowledge since the thing is only known as a frail combination of ideas. Aristotle was a realist regarding knowledge. However, he was not a realist as Plato was since he believed that people can know of the things that they sense, which essentially comprise of two elements; form and matter. Aristotle thought that knowledge can be obtained by simply having a conscious and controlled observation of the world.

Plato has appropriately explained his point of view on love in the context of ancient thought. His concept of love is expressed in his work titled Symposium in terms of his views as implied in the character of Diotima. In the role of Diotima, Plato expresses that love is beautiful and is achieved by using the beautiful things on this earth. Love is achieved by using fair forms, fair practices, and fair notions. From the stage of fair notions, one finally knows and understands the essence of beauty.

Regarding existence, Platos theory is closely related to his metaphysics. He developed the distinctions between illusion and reality and said that anything real cannot be changed and becomes eternal. Things that are just experienced as sensations are considered to be unreal. It was Aristotle who inaugurated the concept of existence as a discipline in his work Metaphysics, in which he outlined the categorization of the different senses and ways in which things can be taken to exist or not. Much against what Plato believed, Aristotle held that universals existed which do not influence the existence of particular things.