Aristotle created a principle by which he evaluated actions and characters. The doctrine of the golden mean is a request for a realistic moral axiom. It asserts that one cannot respond to evil with evil, but in real life, patience sooner or later comes to an end. So there is a demand for more realistic moral axioms, such as the Aristotelian doctrine. The golden mean rule does not always apply because the concept of virtue can be perceived ambiguously in some cases.
The golden mean in Aristotles ethics points to the triumph of virtue and right action. According to him, goodness is associated with a reasonable choice between two vicesone with an excess of something and the other with a lack of something. It is the middle that counts, for extremes exhaust themselves, which is true of human passions and actions. Virtue does not reject the opposites but embraces them equally, being at an equal distance from each of them (Zhou 2). Virtue is always between the extremes of something, and reason rules the path choice. For example, courage is neither recklessness (an excess of courage) nor timidity (a lack of courage). The ideal of the golden mean suggests that a virtuous person acts reasonablychoosing the right cause for action, avoiding unnecessary actions, and entering into relationships with those who are needed.
Virtue is a moral concept that guides the forms of subjective assimilation of moral values. The term virtue indicates a peculiar integral quality of a person, which is the moral goal of a person or a separate property of a person, without which she cannot be considered morally perfect. It is no coincidence that Aristotle, who created the complete concept of virtues in antiquity, affirmed that virtue leads to perfection, the virtue of which it is. The word virtue is used in some cases to denote a personal quality and, in others, as a generalized indicator of character. The word virtue can also be given the personal meaning of moral quality.
Few want to please anyone when injustice, stratification into rich and poor, and religious and national contradictions flourish. The golden rule goes deeper than that: understanding its essence benefits the individual. The principle makes it possible to build successful personal and business relationships and not have problems with the law. The observance of the golden rule is important not only for each individual but also for society as a whole. As a rule, people commit those actions they consider the norm in their environment.
To prove that Aristotles rule of the golden mean defines virtue, we can take the example of friendliness. A person who treats everyone kindly, without seeking benefit or malice, can be called a virtue. Such people do not abuse friendliness, which helps them to make a good impression of themselves and make the interlocutor feel good. In society, such virtues are valued because the concept of friendliness is perceived by everyone roughly the same, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way.
The golden mean rule may not be working in defining virtue. For example, masculinity is perceived differently by each person. For some, dealing with a strangers abuser may be perceived as overly heroic since the situation is unclear, and why help strangers? For others, however, this action is a way to help those around them who are unable to stand up for themselves. For others, a manifestation of masculinity is a way to please those around them, and they do these or other actions only for their benefit.
Thus, true virtue cannot be defined by judging from one rule alone. Situations are different, and people perceive them from their perspective. For some, the middle is excess for others, and vice versa. Acts can be good and bad simultaneously because they can simultaneously cultivate one virtue and infringe on another. Therein lies the chief difficulty in the choice between the two virtues.
Work Cited
Zhou, Yuetong. Aristotles Golden Mean: Vague and Inapplicable?. 2nd International Conference on Language, Art and Cultural Exchange (ICLACE 2021). Atlantis Press, 2021.
Over recent times, many debates have been made regarding thoughts expressed by philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates on issues such as justice, ethics, morality, and governance. This is based on the fact that the philosophical ideas expressed by these scholars have proven to be greatly important in offering guidance to various facets of life-like cultural, social, political, and economic endeavors
In this paper, the central focus is going to be on critiquing the statement that man is a political animala popular viewpoint proposed by Aristotle and supported by several other philosophers. In doing so, a comparison will be made between this Aristotelian thought and the Christian notion of governance and obediencewith a special spotlight being on the thoughts of St. Augustine.
Implications of the Statement by Aristotle
Preliminarily, it is inherent to state that Aristotle was a follower of Plato and, therefore, most of his viewpoints were more-or-less similar to those of Plato. Nonetheless, Aristotle was more radical in his views and that is the reason his arguments and beliefs received a lot of criticisms and praise alike from various scholars.
Saying that man is a political animal has several implications both on a surface and deeper level. In most of his teachings, Aristotle, just like most classical Roman and Greek cynics, emphasized the importance of relative obedience to the people in power as a means of achieving happiness. Nonetheless, going against the leadership and governing systems in Greek society was considered a great offense thus severely punishable. Therefore, in this sense, being a political animal meant that people should strive to conform to the intricacies of the politics of governance since this is the only way they could achieve happiness.
On another level, Aristotle asserted that the word political, in this context, referred to public entities that are entailed in a given society. In addition, he stated that human beings, just like animals, are a product of their surrounding environment and society. Consequently, being a political animal meant that in order to satiate basic needs such as food and shelter; human beings were obligated to do almost anything.
It is at this point that his opinions on virtuosity and happiness come in handy. According to Aristotle, human beings could be virtuous by doing the right thing. Nonetheless, he opined that there are some instances that might require people to do some wrong things, but still be virtuous. To him, the guiding factor for virtuosity was happiness, whether it was achieved by doing a right or morally acceptable wrong thing.
As will be succinctly detailed in the course of this paper, the above viewpoint was hugely criticized by St. Augustine and a good number of Christians who were of the opinion that there are no morally acceptable wrong things. Instead, only absolutes applied when it came to choosing between right and wrong. In this view, Augustine and his Christian followersmostly Catholicsargued that one was either right or wrong and not anything in-between the two moral extremes.
Finally, Aristotle argued that human beings were entitled to free will. However, just like animals, there were some predisposing factors in their immediate environments that limited humans from exercising their free will. In this context, being a political animal necessitated balancing between free will and these predisposing factors.
Aristotelian Thought versus the Christian (St. Augustines) Belief
Going by the implications above, being a political animal tends to interfere with some of the key tenets and principles of life like obedience, morality, virtuosity, and happinessespecially if scrutinized against other belief systems. In the section below, a comparison is going to be done between Aristotles standpoint and the Christian belief.
To begin with, according to Aristotle, being virtuous is concerned with the pursuit (and achieving) of some certain form of moral excellencecommonly called happiness or eudaimonia. This viewpoint was pegged on his metaphysics concept called Teleology, derived from the Greek word telos which means a goal or purpose. It is from that definition that Aristotle asserted that even in virtuosity; people must focus on achieving a certain purpose (which in this case is happiness). So, if the purpose of being happy meant that one should be a political animal, as earlier implied, then so be it.
In the Christian context, however, happiness was directly tied to the principle of obeying God and his words explicitly written in the Bible. Breaking Gods laws, which included obedience to those in authority, was considered to be wrong thus making one eligible for punishment by God. The absolute nature of obedience to God was furthered by St. Augustine who specifically emphasized obedience to Mosaic laws (the Ten Commandments and laws related to them) and following the example of Jesus Christ who, according to the Bible, was perfectly obedient to God and those in authority.
It is, however, important to note that disobedience to authority is allowed to Christians when the circumstance calls for disobedience to God. The example of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the Old Testament is a clear example of such instances.
Again, the ideology by Aristotle that man is a political animal emphasized the importance of the Greek constitution in offering a form of identity to the society and the people within it, as well. Furthermore, amidst criticisms by many scholars, Aristotle propagated the opinion that God had no purpose in human life and people should therefore learn to rely on themselves rather than on a non-verifiable supreme being.
On the other hand, St. Augustine and his Christian followers emphasized the importance of the Bible is not only revealing the true identity of God and how He should be worshipped but also offered a sense of purpose, belonging, and identity to humans. Moreover, having been a staunch believer of knowledge from philosophers like Plato prior to being a Christian; Augustine urged people to use wisdom and biblical discretion when learning from philosophical teachings put forward by other philosophers.
Conclusion
As a rejoinder, it is worth stating that, unlike Aristotle who vehemently opposed the ideologies related to God and Christianity; St. Augustine appreciated the value of philosophies as well as the bible and God. Nonetheless, Aristotle said that in spite of being political animals; human beings had the capacity to think and reasonsomething which most animals lackthus should be able to make intelligible decisions.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that both the Aristotelian and Christian teachings regarding man as a political animal duly noted the value of education, moderation, and obedience in avoiding vices such as corruption while intermittently pursuing happiness. It is, probably, based on this vital similarity that the Aristotelian and Christian teachings went a long way in setting the precedence for the protection of various freedoms, equality, obedience, the value of law and justice in Greece, to be specific, and the world, at large.
Moral virtue was defined by Aristotle as an individuals disposition to make the right decisions as a mediating action targeted to balance excess and deficiencies, which were considered vices. People can learn moral virtue through establishing different habits as well as practicing reasonable actions. Thus, virtue can be described as a matter of establishing appropriate attitudes toward both pleasure and unpleasant moments. When discussing his theory of moral virtue, Aristotle made a point to suggest that the central goal is to achieve a balance between virtue and vice a mean between extremes that exist in ones actions, thoughts, behaviors. Within the moral virtue theory, Aristotle stated that people must do the right thing because it is considered right and not because there is a personal gain that can be achieved from it. Thus, moral virtue is something that people should understand intellectually and apply their knowledge to practice.
Main body
In contrast to virtue, vice is defined as a disposition to make wrong decisions as a means to respond to the outside factors; put simply, vice is the absence of virtue and therefore cannot allow an individual to become truly happy. While vices can be viewed from the perspective of being opposite to virtues, Aristotle made a different distinction. For each virtue, there are two vices, one of deficiency and one of excess, which aligns with the idea that virtue is needed to achieve balance. When discussing different spheres of action, a distinction between vices of excess and vices of deficiency can be made. For example, in the wealth sphere of action, charity is considered a virtue while greed is a vice of excess and stinginess is a vice of deficiency.
Notions of virtue and vice directly relate to Aristotles ideas of character education, which he considered to reference the solid foundation of the philosophy of life, especially when it comes to educating oneself in politics and ethics. It is evident that character education for Aristotle lied in the cultivation of the mind as a major concern in education (p. 70). Both virtue and vice build ones character and therefore can contribute to the view of happiness. Happy people are those who managed to cultivate their character and mind to high degrees and maintain the acquisition of goods within limits that they can manage. Therefore, character education leads to happiness that is equal to the amount of wisdom and virtue. The latter can be divided into two kinds: intellectual and moral. While intellectual virtue is improved and increased through instruction, moral virtue is the end product of habit.
Conclusion
In a general educational system, character education can be associated with teaching people how to exercise their virtue to contribute to the lives of others while also enriching their own lives. This can be done through charitable and community work, which is sometimes included in extra-curriculum work. However, such work is rarely the focus of educational programs because theoretical knowledge and other skills such as reading or writing are unfortunately considered more important than character education. Teaching students moral and civic virtues is an essential component of education because it will prepare them for future lives in a grown-up world. Since moral virtue implies finding a balance between vices, character education will contribute to building interpersonal and societal skills, without which striking a balance between vices will be near to impossible.
References
Ladikos, A. (2010). Aristotle on intellectual and character education. Phronimon, 11(2), 69-83.
Aristotle is considered to be one of the greatest Greek philosophers that ever lived according to the Encyclopedia of Classical philosophy (1997).
He lived between 384 B.C. and 322 B.C. having accomplished a lot in philosophy and all other fields of Education. At the age of seven, he joined Platos academy where he became one of his favorite student. He later on became a researcher then a teacher in the same institution. In his life, he taught Alexander the Great who at the time was thirteen years of age, at the invitation of his father King Phillip II.
This great philosopher was born in a town called Stageira in Chalcidice. Later on at the age of eighteen, he moved to Athens to study and this became his home for the next twenty years, after which he moved to Asia after the death of Plato where he concentrated in the study of biology at Lesbos Island. In fact, Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece (2005) indicates that he conducted most of his research in this period.
There are a number of significant events which took place during the times of Aristotle and which had an impact in his life. In Athens where he had lived for almost twenty years, there was the anti-Macedonia uprising around 347 B.C. which led to a series of political unrests. Being of Macedonian origin, he was forced to flee the country as indicated in The Columbia Encyclopedia (2008). Later on, King Philip came to power and restored peace between Macedonia and Athens, a gesture that saw to the return of peace. In 323 B.C. however, the political unrest revived again after the rule of Alexander the Great came to an end. Aristotle was considered to be a great sympathizer of Alexander and these latter revolts were directly focused on him. He was charged with blasphemy and forced to flee the country together with his family (Bryant 1996).
With the help of other scholars, Aristotle was able to establish his own school, the Lyceum which was later renamed to Peripatetic. According to the Encyclopedia of classical philosophy (1997), Alexander the Great who was one of Aristotles students financed his research in Peripatetic and had ordered hunters, fishermen, bird-catchers, beekeepers and other professionals to convey to Aristotle any information of scientific interest (pg 1).
The coming down of Alexanders reign had negative effects to the life of Aristotle since it caused a security threat forcing him to flee (Bechler 1995). Besides this the death of Plato also caused a major turn of events in the life of Aristotle. This owes to the fact that he left the Academy and started working on his own philosophical dissertations.
After fleeing Athens in 323 BC, Aristotles life came to an end in 322 BC after an ailment of the digestive organs (Bar and Bat 1994). His work was considered as the most influential in the world of philosophy and was widely used between the period of antiquity and renaissance. He had a great influence in the western world especially with regards to social sciences and humanities and some of the ideas he developed are still debatable to date.
Aristotle was famous for a number of philosophical theories some of which survived while others were faced out. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999), a majority of his work was geared towards the public and it is believed that Plato played a big role in these writings.
There are however others which are historical in nature such as the Constitution of the Athenians, a piece that was used by his students in the study of political theories. Despite the fact that most of his writings got lost, the ones that survived are still considered the best writings of the time (Anton, George and Anthony 1971).
One of Aristotles most famous theories was the metaphysics. In this theory, he argues that all investigation must begin with what the senses record and must move only from that point to thought (Stern 1995, pg 4). The term metaphysics is directly interpreted to what comes after physics.
According to the Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, there were two conditions to this theory. The first one indicated that objects which were widely known needed to exist separately from the non-sensible objects. The second condition on the other hand had it that the objects which were known were just a generalization of objects.
The other theory developed by Aristotle was that of Practical philosophy. This was stipulated in two of his works namely the Nicomachean Ethics and the politics. The main aim of this was to bring out the best actions in issues related to conduct (Ferrarin 2001). As a result of this, he developed the Nicomachean Ethics as a reminder of the principle of becoming good and not just knowing what is good.
In this philosophy, he went ahead to explain that good people made that choice at one point or the other and not just the actions but the right way of performing those actions as well. He explained different types of individuals; the akratic being one who decides to act contrary to what they know is right out of desire while the enkratic despite feeling like they want to act contrary decide to take the right action.
Another philosophical theory that was brought forth by Aristotle was that of psychology. One of his writings, on the soul provided a universal interpretation of the nature and quantity of cognitive faculties principles of the soul. Other writings such as the Parva naturalia made use of the universal theory to a wide variety of psychological occurrences ranging from sleeping, dreaming and waking to memory and reminiscence (Bryant 1996).
He went ahead and subdivided the capacity to perform different actions into either potentiality or actuality. He explained potentiality as an inborn characteristic in an organism by virtue of it belonging to a specific species. Actuality on the other hand is gained through training and experience in that particular field.
The ideas developed by Aristotle were unique in their own ways. In the development of his theories he tried to bring the natural way of occurrences in to the thinking and actions of living creatures and specifically humans. As a result of this, his theories were subject to less disapproval since they were self-supportive.
The other significant element about these theories was that they remained relevant long afterwards, owing to his extensive research in the different fields. This implies that his ideas were viable in a way that has not been countered by any other scholars so far.
The philosophical ideas and theories developed by Aristotle were mainly influenced by his predecessors such as Socrates and Plato. Plato was his teacher earlier in life and he got an inspiration in mathematics while in the academy. He however opposed some of the speculations made by Plato but later on came to understand these ideas and incorporated some of them in his theories.
The other great influence to the development of Aristotles theories was Socrates who died long before Aristotle was born and who also happened to be Platos teacher (Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics 2006). Socrates was among the original authors of Greek philosophies and made a great contribution to the development of ethics as a discipline. Aristotle built his theory of ethics on this hence making Socrates an important figure in his work.
The philosophical theories developed by Aristotle acted as the main guidelines to human living at the time. These philosophies played a major role in ensuring co-existence in a place where there were no laid down rules. The theory on ethics for example ensured that people were able to develop behavioral habits that were less of a bother to other people around them. These theories also had an impact on the future since they formed the foundation of the present day education system (Bodaeeus 1993).
Other scholars who came after Aristotle were developing their theories from what Aristotle had already researched on. He also pioneered the issue of gender equality by insisting that women needed to be happy just like their male counterparts. Some of the people who were directly influenced by Aristotle include Aristoxenus, Harpalus, Nichomacus and Dicaerchus among others, all of whom were students at the Lyceum.
Works Cited
Anton, John Peter, George L. Kustas, and Anthony Preus. Essays In Ancient Greek Philosophy. n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1971. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.). Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy. Westport: Greenwood, (1997). Credo Reference. Web.
Aristotle (384 322 B.C.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1999). Credo Reference. Web.
Aristotle (384322 BCE). The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics. Abingdon: Hodder Education, (2006). Credo Reference. Web.
Aristotle. The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, (2008). Credo Reference. Web.
Bar On and Bat Ami. Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings In Plato And Aristotle. n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1994. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Bechler, Zeafer. Aristotles Theory Of Actuality. n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1995. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Bodaeeus, Richard. The Political Dimensions Of Aristotles Ethics. n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1993. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes And Social Structure In Ancient Greece : A Sociology Of Greek Ethics From Homer To The Epicureans And Stoics. n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1996. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Ferrarin, Alfredo. Hegel And Aristotle. n.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Introduction. Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, (2005). Credo Reference. Web.
Stern-Gillet, Suzanne. Aristotles Philosophy Of Friendship. n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1995. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.
Socrates and Aristotle are two Greek philosophers who are held in high esteem amongst other early Greek philosophers. Regarded as the father of philosophy, Socrates was a great philosopher whose student Plato, later taught Aristotle. These philosophers, though from the same country, seem to have different views of the numerous things that they spoke about. From their political beliefs to other believes about life in general there are a lot of discrepancies in their works (Bostock, 2000).
Comparison
Virtue is described by some scholars as a set of behaviors or attitudes that show high moral standards. Though it is not quantifiable, it can be measured relatively. Socrates believed that virtue in a persons life is achieved by the individual living his/her life focusing on self-development rather than material things. This is very well displayed in the way that Socrates lived his life (Bostock, 2000). What he did to earn a living is not clear, and that is a strong indication of his belief that happiness should come from ones inner self and not material wealth. He described two forms of virtues that are in humans; philosophical and intellectual virtues. These virtues were believed to be acquired from the wide knowledge of things that happened around a place.
Aristotle has also divided virtue into two; the virtue of thinking and that of character. He goes ahead to say in his writings that the former needs teaching, experience, and time while the latter comes about out of living following the right habits. The virtue of character Aristotle believes comes by nature in all humans. Though he agrees with Socrates that virtue brings about happiness in life, he believes that happiness comes from one enjoying the virtue that he/she possesses.
The major difference in the beliefs of the two Greek philosophers under scrutiny here is that while Socrates accounts on virtue are manifested through his life, Aristotles accounts are only in his writings. Socrates presents his account in the form of questions and then lets his listeners decide for themselves. This marks a point of conflict as one cannot ask that which he knows nothing about.
Socrates accounts for virtue by saying that ideal life is spent in search of doing good and he is believed to have spent his life in the company of people whom he invited to his place. He believed that friendship and virtuous life with a sense of brotherhood was the best way for individuals to live together as a community. His belief in brotherhood is what made him accept the death sentence handed to him by the Athenian authority as he thought it a betrayal to the people had he decided to run away to escape the sentence. He dedicated his life to discussing philosophy because that is what he considered the most important thing in life. His failure to work to earn a living was an indication to his listeners that material wealth did not contribute to happiness as virtue itself is sufficient for happiness (Bostock, 2000).
Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that this virtue comes at a midpoint between two extremes. Concerning material wealth, he says that virtue is to treat money as any other useful thing that one may have. He believes that the ability to know who to spend it well brings about a virtue. Using money in the correct way he says is a virtue according to Aristotle but to Socrates, material wealth is in no a virtue (Burger, 2008).
About todays livelihood, the teachings of these great philosophers are of high value. Aristotles account of virtue is more plausible in todays society than that of Socrates. This is manifested in their teachings where Aristotle speaks of virtue as finding a balance between two extremes (Bostock, 2000) while Socrates says that virtue is the desire for one to do well in ones life.
Conclusion
It is practically impossible for a person to make a living without working as accounted by Socrates. His way of life, in which he sought to teach people philosophy to help them live a virtuous life, ended up in conflict with the political class by criticizing his city, which earned him a death sentence. This if is to be deemed as the price one has to pay for being virtuous, and then very few individuals would be ready to follow Socrates teaching. Aristotle himself described Socrates as having turned philosophy into human questions. This effect can though be attributed to the fact that Aristotle was a student of one of Socrates students who is Plato. In most of his teachings, Aristotle used the latters teachings as a point of reference, and therefore, was more or less correct them through his understanding of philosophy (Bostock, 2000).
References
Bostock, D. (2000). Aristotles Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burger, R. (2008). Aristotles Dialogue with Socrates: On the Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle provides a definition of virtue which has been discussed and disputed by many thinkers.
In particular, he writes that virtue is a state that decides, consisting in a mean, relative to us, which is defined by reference to a reason, that is to say, to the reason by reference to which the prudent person would define it (Aristotle as cited in Cahn 273).
This paper is aimed at discussing this interpretation in more detail because Aristotle highlights very important aspects of ethics.
First of all, Aristotle emphasizes the point that virtue is a temporary state of mind, and it is not an inherent quality of an individual. This definition may imply that vice and virtue may be characteristics of every human being.
Secondly, the philosopher sets stress on the idea of the mean or balance. This is probably the most crucial part of his argument because Aristotle extremism is not appropriate for ethical judgment.
Provided that this section had been absent, this definition might have led to the belief that there is a sharp distinction between ethical and unethical judgments or decisions. This section highlights the necessity of moderation and ability to avoid intolerance.
Furthermore, in the Nichomachean Ethics Aristotle adds the phrase relative to us (Aristotle as cited in Cahn 273).
This part of the definition should not be disregarded, because it implies that there is not universal standard of virtue since ethical norms are set by different individuals and communities and they may not be the same.
This is one of the key issues that should be taken into consideration by people who speak about ethics.
Apart from that, Aristotle adds two important components to his definition of virtue. In particular he mentions that virtue always refers to reason. Although this argument seems self-evident, for many people ethics is based on emotions, rather than rationality.
This is why the philosopher chose to include this point in the definition. Finally, it is important to mention that Aristotle refers to such a concept as prudence.
In this case, the word prudence means the ability to understand ones interests and goals. Again in this way, Aristotle shows the strong connection between the rationality of a human being and virtue.
Overall, by defining virtue in this way, Aristotle strived to explain how people should think about ethics, moral norms. He emphasizes such aspects as rationality, prudence, and absence of universal standards. These are the main points to which the philosopher attracts the readers attention in his works.
Works Cited
Cahn, Steven. Classics of Western Philosophy, New York: Hackett, 2002. Print.
The term epistemology stems from the ancient Greek words episteme meaning knowledge and logos meaning account. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the understanding of knowledge (Hetherington 2). Even though Aristotle was one of Platos disciples, he had a different view of the world. In the following essay, I will examine both theories and use examples, as well as my belief, to illustrate the validity of one of the approaches and understand the subject of knowledge.
Platos Epistemology
Plato first introduced epistemological problems to an Athenian audience in the fourth century BC with his influential dialogues, which signified the beginning of systematic western epistemology (Hetherington 9). Platos questions about knowledge are still relevant today and are among philosophys key epistemological challenges. Other philosophers were often the main characters in Platonic dialogues, as Socrates, for instance, was portrayed as the linking between the present knowledge and what we knew from a previous life (Hetherington 10). Epistemological thinking of Plato is characterized by its metaphysical nature and specific metaphysical conclusions that the philosopher made.
The concept of a Form is one of the most famous and controversial Platonic ideas, which is based on the blend of epistemology and metaphysics. According to Plato, Forms are abstract and universal properties existing nowhere and everywhere at once (Hetherington 11). Thus, there is a corresponding Form, or an Idea, for any comprehensible thing or property, but the transient world we live in is a poor imitation of the constant world of the Forms. To illustrate the concept, let us provide an example from everyday life. Suppose there is a red house and a tall person living in it, which exists in reality. The house and its inhabitant are particular objects with their unique properties, such as the houses color and the persons height. There is also a variety of other houses in the world with different people living in them, but the Form and the general idea of a house, or a person, is always constant in time and space. Therefore, one thing in general (i.e., a house) can be many things in particular (i.e., green house, or red house), since a singular Form can represent itself in plural objects.
It is also worth mentioning the Allegory of the Cave, in which Plato explains the relationship between people and the world of the Forms. In the Republic, Plato uses the instance of people living in the cave to illustrate the gap between the ever-changing world and the unchanging world where the Forms exist. The shadows on the walls are all that the cave people perceive, and so are real physical objects, which are mere shadows compared to the reality of the Forms (Macintosh). Only the ones who can come out of the cave and see sunlight, or recall the true reality (i.e., the Forms), should rule the state, as maintained by Plato.
Aristotles Epistemology
Aristotle discovered and analyzed the complexities of the physical and conceptual world, and this knowledge proved to be a valuable contribution to the study of epistemology. Following in the footsteps of his teacher, the philosopher aimed to understand the material world, but even more so, the process of its understanding. However, unlike Plato, Aristotle did not appeal to the concept of abstract Forms but searched for explanations within the observable world. He recognized that while there can be knowledge that something is so, beyond that there might also be knowledge of why it is so (Hetherington 12). Aristotle used observation as a powerful epistemic tool that contributed to the future of explanatory science.
In Metaphysics, Aristotle argues that form is what unifies matter into a single object. Such an approach has been dubbed hylomorphism from the Greek words hule and morphe meaning matter and form, respectively (Ainsworth). Aristotle divided the changes in the physical world into two types: accidental changes and substances that gain or lose a property. Putting on a few pounds of weight after a feast would be considered an accidental change, while as a substance, a person would gain the property of weighing two hundred pounds. Matter of the substance is something that persists through the change, like the bricks that transition from a state of not being a building to the property of being a finished building.
Aristotle claimed that we acquire new information by using our senses to accumulate and retain knowledge (Hetherington 55). From the interaction with substances, like animals, plants, or food, human beings learn about the essence of those substances. Essence is a form of things, defining them and explaining what it is to be that thing (Ainsworth). People can touch a dog feeling the softness of its fur, smell the odor of a flower, or taste the spicy flavor of a chilly pepper. Not only people can retain these properties of substances in memory but also group the memories together to form experience. A statue of a dog may look realistic, but it is not the real animal, as it cannot perform a dogs characteristic functions (i.e., barking), so the essence of a dog is absent in the statue. Thus, every material substance is a unity of form and its matter.
Contrasting the Theories of Plato and Aristotle
Both Plato and Aristotle were concerned with the understanding of the observable world, however, there are significant differences in approaches. Platonic epistemology is based on the concept of abstract Forms representing themselves in various particular objects, while Aristotle believed in the unity of form and matter in different substances. The knowledge, according to Platos Allegory of the Cave, can only be recalled from past life, whereas Aristotle claimed that human beings use sensory abilities to gain information from the world around them.
The Third Man argument was initially started by Socrates, but later appeared in Platos Parmenides and received its name in Aristotles Metaphysics. Plato based the argument on the principle of one over many, which means that each form (i.e., F) has one account that provides an explanation of how the F item is F, so a perfect form of a man has F-ness of any man (Fine 239). Only those who had previous knowledge of the Form of Equality can recognize sensible as equal. Aristotle rejected Platos argument because if the Equality is equal to another Equal, there will be more than one Idea of Equality. (Gerson 230) Thus, Plato believed that the Forms existed independently, while Aristotle doubted the existence of the Forms.
My belief is that education should be available to everyone, which agrees with the epistemology of Aristotle since he stated that we learn about the world through our sensible interaction with substances. The platonic approach is not applicable to my belief as the philosopher denies the possibility of learning for all but the perfect humans able to recall past knowledge. Therefore, Plato reserved the right to learn to the chosen reincarnated individuals, while Aristotle promoted the idea of universal ability to gain knowledge.
Similar to his teacher Plato, Aristotle had a profound impact on philosophy in general, and epistemology in particular. Aristotles approach fits my belief best because, as any substances, people can gain the property of knowledge, and thus, everyone can be educated. Overall, the rational thought of Plato and the scientific method of Aristotle can be applied today for a better understanding of knowledge and phenomena surrounding us every day.
Works Cited
Ainsworth, Thomas. Form vs. Matter, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, 2016, Web.
Fine, Gail, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Plato. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2019.
Gerson, Lloyd P. Aristotle and Other Platonists. Cornell University Press, 2017.
To effectively study the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, a deep analysis of the life and ideology of both philosophers is needed to come up with a conclusive hypothesis. This is necessitated by the fact that life deals with each individual differently and the physical environment determines what an individual perceives.
These aspects combined led to Plato being regarded as a political philosopher and Aristotle being considered as a political scientist. These views are however vague, and as we shall see, both individuals were highly knowledgeable in the political field. Only an imaginary thin line differentiated their political philosophy bearing in mind both descended from the same school of thought.
Platos Life and Work
Plato was a Greek philosopher born in Athens in 427BC to an aristocratic family. He was the second member of the three ancient Greeks philosophers. His father Ariston was believed to be of royal descent and he had three sons, Adeimantus, Glaucon, and Plato who was the youngest.
Plato is described as bright student who excelled in his studies and their parents endeavored to give their children the best education. After his fathers death, his mother Perictione was married to Pyrilampes, given that according to Athenian law; it was illegal for women to be independent.
Pyrilampes was a friend of Pericles, the head of the democratic faction in Athens therefore Plato was exposed to both the oligarchy and democratic political ideologies from early childhood. Pyrilampes attempted to convince him into joining oligarchic leadership but because of the disillusion he bore over the empire, Plato declined this offer and instead joined his two older brothers to become a student of a teacher named Socrates.
Socrates dedicated his life to seeking the truth and examining morality through the challenges he posed to his of pupils. This was achieved by allowing them to test then critically scrutinize their thoughts and values mostly in religion and politics. This put him at loggerheads with many powerful individuals and in a short while, he was charged with corrupting the minds of the youth in Athens.
The death of his teacher further amplified Platos detest for the political regimes and he came to the conclusion that politics needed genuine philosophers to rule the states and to introduce sobriety. He later founded an Academy, in a grove sacred to the demigod Academus where Aristotle enrolled as a student.
It was an institution of higher learning, which covered a wide variety of subjects including physical science, astronomy, mathematics and philosophy. Plato spent a few years travelling the Mediterranean where he studied various civilizations until 360BC when he settled back in Athens as president of the Academy and went around giving lectures to various groups until his death in 347 BC.
Aristotle: His Life and Work
Aristotle was born in 384 BC to a patrician family and his father Nichomachus was a physician to the king of Macedonia. While still young, his father sent him to study in an Academy where he was taught by Plato and indoctrinated with platonic ideology.
For almost twenty years, Aristotle studied Philosophy at the Academy and eventually went on to become a teacher under Plato. As he progressed in philosophy, he often contradicted with his teacher and finally he diverged from Platonic ideas to develop his own philosophy based on deductive logic.
Soon after Platos death, Aristotle left Athens for Assos which is in Asia, where he married Pythias, a daughter of King Hermeas who coincidentally was a former student of Plato. He opened his own Academy that mainly focused on biological and zoological sciences and his extensive study on classification of animals into genus and species shaped the foundation on which the modern classification in biology lies.
It is while in Assos that Aristotle began tutoring Alexander, son of King Philip of Macedonia who would eventually be known as Alexander the Great. The death of King Philip in 336 BC gave Alexander a chance to become king and with the help of his fathers army, he went ahead to conquer vast territories including Greece.
The death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC threw Greece into disarray since Athenians had for a long time detested Macedonian dominance. Alexander the Greats death provides an opportunity for them to be liberated and there were several protests in Athens. Aristotle was forced to abandon Lyceum after he was accused of impiety and he fled to the island of Euboea where he died in 322 BC.
Plato vs. Aristotle: Epistemology, Cosmology, and Body/Soul Theory
Plato put forward the theory on rationality in epistemology which suggested that knowledge is inborn or priori because the soul is only trapped in the body. He goes on to say that the soul once existed in reality and knew everything but forgot it after being trapped in the body (Plato 433a-433b).
He argued that true knowledge is not learnt but merely recalled and so to achieve this knowledge one must overcome the body which is simply a prison that gives us a false perception leading to materialistic desires. Aristotle contradicted this by suggesting that true knowledge can only be achieved through experience or Posteriori. Based on the Empiricism theory, he further argued that knowledge is universal and the difference is only in the perception of form, (Aristotle I.1.175b22).
On cosmology, Plato concentrated on mathematical patterns to demonstrate perfection of true knowledge of being. He argued that the world and cosmos were created by an intelligent superior being according to eternal forms of perfection who induced constant motion to the cosmos.
Human life by itself imitates the order presented by the creator and will be judged on how well it fit into this cosmic order (Plato 396a). Aristotles argument was based on biological reasoning where the essence of the universe emanated from a Thinking thought through which the universe was set in motion.
Unlike Plato who argued that nothing can be created from nothing, Aristotle argued that the universe was composed of substance that originated from nothing. The thinking thought therefore organized the cosmos by being matter itself (Aristotle II.10.122a19). Therefore, while Plato argued that a creator only created the forms present in the cosmos, Aristotle contradicted him by arguing that the creator was in the forms themselves.
The body/soul theory differed between both philosophers since Plato believed that the soul was the essence of being and that which gave life to the body.
The body could not exist without a soul and therefore both were separate entities. He further implied that the soul was immortal, and death of the body only liberated the soul allowing it to be continually reincarnated into other bodies (Plato 419c). The body, he concluded was hindrance to the soul for bodily perception was unreal and it limited the amount of knowledge the soul could express.
He then divided the soul into three categories; will, reason and appetite each of these working in harmony for a being to achieve balance and peace (Plato 317e-433d). Aristotle negated this with the argument that the body and the soul were not absolute separate entries; rather the soul was life which translated to the activity a being is involved in. The soul therefore was mortal and only existed because of the body and the only role it played was to provide fulfillment and accomplishment (Aristotle II.4.18 9c33).
Plato: Political Theory
Political justice
Plato in his conversations does not attempt to arrive at an adequate oral definition of justice, rather he tries to bring forth the right belief by focusing on the thing to which the word refers to. Hence, Platonic dialogs in essence try to conceptualize and critically analyze beliefs subject to justice. In the Republic, Plato attempts to define justice by expressing justice as what sets the guidelines for societal behavior and brings peace to society.
In contrast to Thrasymachus, a sophist who asserts that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger unjust rulers who make the rules (Plato 338c), Plato clearly analyses justice and goes ahead to categorize it into individual and political. He asserts that political justice is easily achieved for a city is bigger than an individual and this then reflects on individuals thus striking a balances structure of governance achieved through reason and education.
Economic justice
Plato further implies that each community in society has an exclusive set of skills that are in-born. To achieve economic justice, each skill should be exclusive and presented to the unified single society fostered by mutual interests. This greatly contradicted sophists approach to justice yet sophists were claimed to be the best teachers in oratory and practical skills (Plato 419b).
Sophist
The Sophists were teachers of Athenian citizens who were responsible for conveying oral and physical skills for a fee. Plato differentiated sophists from Socrates based on the payment they received for teaching, unlike Socrates who did not ask for payment, nor did he teach but rather guided his pupils into the right thinking framework.
Plato described sophists as peripatetic relativists with good rhetoric proficiency who lacked morality and hence lacked the true perception of justice (Plato 543b). The Sophists neglected philosophy and ethics and instead tutored on art of persuasion, perpetuating eloquent arguments through speech.
Gyges ring
Plato uses The Ring of Gyges to portray how flawed human beings are in their belief of justice. He states that any person with the ability to become invincible would most definitely commit injustices, for people are only just as a matter of necessity rather than virtue. Individuals only prefer to be just and obey laws because they will be rewarded, lack the will to behave criminally and are afraid of punishment (Plato, 359a).
Origin of the state
Plato had great philosophical ideology on the ideal state or government ruling a perfect society. He sought to create solutions for political and social problems he felt were prominent and consequently divided individual people into three distinct groupings which were the Productive Workers, the Protective Warriors and the Governing Rulers.
He further designated each group to the sections of the soul, with workers corresponding to appetite, warriors to will and rulers to reason. This model was supportive of philosophical kings guided by wisdom and reason, were in a better position to rule states hence tarnishing the tyranny, despotism and oligarchy forms of governance (Plato 619d). He goes ahead to conceptualize academic systems that were likely to produce philosophical kings.
Nature and symmetry of three parts of the soul and three parts of the state and correlative virtues
Plato divided the soul into three parts, the will, reason and appetite. Each of these sections had a certain role to play in the overall function of a being and was responsible for determining the interests, virtues and character of the being.
Reason according to Plato is the souls source of power and is responsible for taming the fleshly desires. Individuals with a heightened reasoning capacity should be selected as rulers and kings over nations or become great philosophers due to their wisdom.
The will is what aides reason in overcoming bodily desire and according to Plato, will has its foundation on human emotion(Plato 541a). Plato suggested that individuals with sufficient will over reason and appetite were adventurers and therefore belonged to the creed of warriors propelled by courage.
Appetite was associated too the body and most limiting and overpowering of all the parts of the soul. Desire seeking individuals engaged in materialistic pleasures and according to Plato, they ended up being the majority of citizens referred to as commoners. Plato went further to associate all the parts of the soul to parts of the body with reason connected to the head, will connected to the heart and appetite connected to the abdomen and sensory organs.
Allegory of the cave
Fictional dialogue between Socrates and Platos brother Glaucon takes most part of the allegory of the cave in The Republic. Plato uses the allegory to show human desire relative to learning and truth and is depicted by an imaginary group of prisoners who have been chained to a wall in a cave and face a plain wall before them. There is a fire behind them and object in front of the fire casts a shadow on the wall and the prisoners take these shadows to be reality. Later, the prisoners are released only to discover the reality they perceived was not real. Plato uses the allegory to describe how philosophy liberates an individual. Human beings are occupied in achieving material things which Plato metaphorically refers to as the shadows (Plato 538e). Only by studying philosophy is one able to understand the realm of the mind and soul consequently bequeathing earthly pursuits. In the theory of forms, human beings should place greater value on ideas which are eternal and constitute of knowledge, rather than earthly achievements which are just illusions.
Simile of the divided line
Plato uses the simile of the dividing line from a geometric perspective to distinguish between the realms of knowledge and reality and is a larger part of the allegory of the cave. Plato is convinced that human beings are like prisoners in a cave, so limited in our perception that we are easily attracted to false reality.
After being liberated from the bondages of ignorance, humans will then notice the fire and puppets that have been projecting our false reality for a long time, meaning if a person makes an ignorant person knowledgeable he will then be the reality of the ignorant person. The prisoner then ventures outside and discovers the existing features in nature, but is first blinded by the sun that helps him see these things (Plato 576c).
The prisoner is the philosopher who is released from the world of becoming which is the cave, into the world of being. The fire in the cave is the physical sun, while the puppets are objects in the world, reflecting their realities as shadows upon the imprisoned philosopher. The outside sun is the senses which help the philosopher reason out true knowledge and truth.
Noble lie of men of gold, silver
In the republic, Plato gives a fictional theory on how the three classes of society came into existence and remained so. The noble lie is a tale told to the people on how the three classes are selected and allocated. Though all people are brothers and sisters, people are subtly composed of different type of metal.
Rulers are made of gold, warriors are made of silver and commoners are made of bronze (Plato 572a). Most of those born among the rulers have gold but those with silver and bronze will be allocated another class. Similarly, most of those born among commoners have bronze but some will contain gold and silver and thus be allocated a higher class. This tale was told in order to induce order and harmony into society which would otherwise be in disarray if all individuals wanted to rule.
Education and lifestyle of guardians and workers
Plato in the republic offered a simple profile of how guardians should live in order to dissuade commoners from envying power for their own pleasure.
The Guardians must live in paucity, and communally share their property. Children belonging to guardians will be raised communally with no knowledge of their birth parents. These children will be bred deliberately to produce an offspring suitable to be a guardian. Women will also be guardians and will have to go to war (Plato 544c).
Their education will simply be to determine children who are driven by desire and demoting them to commoners. Workers are to live by their pay and were to be allocated relatively comfortable stature. Their children are to be taught skill and trade for them to be in a capacity to contribute to the state.
Myth of Er
The Myth of Er is mystic story about Er who dies in battle but raises again after being buried. He recollects his experience in the afterlife from where he has been. After death, Er finds himself in place with four openings, two in and out of the heavens and two into and out of the earth. There are judges seated between these openings who direct Er to observe as good souls are heading for the heavens and evil souls are directed below, so as to explain this to the humans back on earth.
Good souls came back to explain the marvels of the heavens whereas the bad souls came to mourn and beg for mercy. For days, Er travels together with other souls and comes to a rainbow referred to the spindle of Necessity (Plato 622b). The souls accompanying Er are then given a token that will select their next life and he is surprised to see animals choose a human life and humans choose animal life.
The souls then traveled to the Plain of Oblivion, to drink from the River of Forgetfulness and each soul forgot everything. The souls are then lifted into the night for reincarnation into their new body and life. The Myth of Er is the concluding dialogue in the republic and is aimed at illustrating the immorality of the soul as well as the reward for good and the punishment for evil.
Aristotle Theory of Political Science
Origin of the state & relation to family and village
Aristotle in his book politics begins by defining a citizen as a person who has a right to vie for public office. Children, seniors and foreigners thus do not qualify to be called citizens. He argues that the city-state or the polis is a collective entity composed of different of citizens.
The family unit should therefore be treated as a polis for it is composed of different individuals each subject to that family through different relations. He goes ahead to stress that in comparison, men make better leaders than women so they should assume the leadership role in the family(Aristotle III.16.125b40).
A village is a collection of families which Aristotle associates with the state as an entity to the polis. He further adds that state does not need remaking rather needs improvement of society. He however did not distinguish between state and society therefore forming no absolute merit between the two.
Nature of justice
Aristotle acknowledges that justice should be responsible for nurturing the belief that good life is subject to all in society in disregard to their social class. He gives the examples of democratic states which perceive justice as equality bestowed by free birth and oligarchic states conceive justice even in the presence of corruption and inequality in distribution of office, provided by accumulated wealth (Aristotle III.1.1275b20).
He however disagrees with these forms of justice, which he claims will eventually lead to the fall of a city-state. He therefore believes that justice does exist but in an objective manner. It involves treating all people equally and conversely, it entails unequal treatment to unequal people.
Types of government
Aristotle discerns six types of governments, each determined by the number of rulers a state has. A one-ruler state in the correct form of administration, he identifies as a kingship. A state under a few rulers under the correct conditions will form an aristocracy, but where disaccord arises, an oligarchy is formed. Aristotle also acknowledges that many rulers can form a polity, a combination of oligarchy, and aristocracy, which under deviant conditions forms a democracy (Aristotle II.1.1261a18).
How to distinguish good government from bad
Aristotle was of the view that a good government no matter how distorted was to look out for the common peoples welfare. A good government was therefore just and maintained a balance in all state offices.
This government was in a position to have a constitution and impose authority subjecting everyone to the law. He was also of the view that lawgivers should be the politicians ruling the state for they know what is just. He most favored the aristocratic form of government which pooled the various virtues of different leaders into one government (Aristotle II.1.1339a11).
A bad government according to Aristotle was one that allowed one class to wield political power. What this meant is that the state would miss out on a great leader with wisdom and high values simply because he did not belong to the ruling class. This according to Aristotle was bad governance.
Why Platos idea of state is impractical
Aristotle in politics greatly disagrees with Platos idea of state which provides the framework for creating a new state. Rather, Aristotle is of the view that the state itself should be responsible for attaining the best system of existence.
By deductive inference, Aristotle states that the perfect system of state is already in existence, and finds no reason as to why the platonic ideology should be applied to it. Thus to Aristotle, the perfect state is being lived out at present and Platos state is a mere solution to a non-existent problem.
Change in states and best functioning
Aristotle believed that the state was primarily responsible for its own prosperity. To achieve this, the state should have order in government and society, with each category having different sectors of distinct function. Though he was against money exchange, he was for a state that could rebuild itself through the available physical and human resources (Aristotle II.2.3261b27).
To do this, every individual in society who qualifies to be a citizen should be consulted in the running of the state, for only then can true harmony be achieved. Therefore, the best functioning state was one that allowed citizens of every class into government and every class was eligible for trade and possession of private property.
Ideal state, active & philosophical life
Aristotelian politics seeks to establish the best system that will be able to support a majority of city-states. He aims at a state that is concerned with the happiness of its citizens, where each individual will possess virtues and the knowledge and skill required to dispense justice, leading to a peaceful and happy state.
Such a state will allow citizens to hold public office trade freely and own private property and everyone will be equal as opposed to the oppressive communal state. This state will possess a common educational system for all citizens and the lawmakers will be primarily responsible for it in case the initial objectives are not achieved (Aristotle III.1.1298a21).
Role of education in relation to the state
Education according to Aristotle will provide a balance in the state since all citizens will be knowledgeable. Education should not only cover area of skill and basic knowledge, rather should instill virtues to the pupils and integrate values into society. Education is therefore a form of glue that can hold a state together cohesively, but only when taught in the right way.
Education should also provide the values needed by rulers of the state to govern effectively. It is therefore a basic necessity to incorporate education into society for growth and prosperity of the state. Philosophers and intellectuals should be bred through education if the state desires to advance its systems of governance and coexistence.
Plato and Aristotle: Main Points of Comparison
Both philosophers agree that justice is a necessary value and should be experienced by every one in a society regardless of their social class.
Plato and Aristotle had a basic intent to improve the society they lived in and both came up with brilliant ideas as to how the society could be enhanced.
Plato and Aristotle also agree that the universe originated from a more powerful and intelligent entity than the normal human being. Though they both have a different opinion on the function of the entity, they acknowledge its existence.
Plato and Aristotle are descendants of the intellectual prism housed by Socrates. Socrates taught Plato and Plato taught Aristotle. They shared the same backbone in philosophy even though their ideology may have differed.
Both Plato and Aristotle were not content with the political governance of Athens during their time. Both tried to come up with concepts that were supposed to improve these forms of governance and consequently alter the leadership.
Both philosophers are responsible for shaping modern civilization. Aristotle played a contributory role to modern democracy and Platos writings have helped shape the curricula of political institutions through his quest for truth in political philosophy.
Conclusion
Plato and Aristotle were both brought up in descent homes in their times. They went to the same academy and taught at this same academy. Their philosophies in regard to politics differ and both men impel a convincing argument as far as political governance is concerned.
Their views on life and death are also polarized with Plato suggesting the existence of life after death and Aristotle affirming that life ends when one dies. Though they have different opinions on a wide range of issues, they seemed to concur that society needed to be improved and the full capacity of human resource and knowledge has never been attained.
They also yearn for a balanced, peaceful and harmonized society, which compels them to come up with social models that would eventually produce the desired results. Both are highly acclaimed philosophers who formed the foundation of modern western culture and so presuming ones work is superior to the other is a fallacy.
Work Cited
Aristotle. The Politics of Aristotle . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 1997. Print.
Plato. The Republic of Plato . New York: Basic Books. 1991. Print
Before the Greek physicians and philosophers of the Classical Age took up the question of the nature of women, the Greeks had serious attitudes toward women as revealed in their literature (Whaley 2003, p. 1). Generally, women were to be kept down, or some disaster would occur.
Ancient Greek society was fundamentally patriarchal in nature and women were always under the control of men. Women were never expected to be in charge of their own lives and were viewed essentially as evil creatures.
According to Whaley (2003, p. 1), this perception can be traced back to the writings of the eighth century poet Hesiod. In one of his poems, Hesiod described human misfortunes as beginning from a womans curiosity.
Ordinarily, the ancient Greeks tended to view women as being passive and weak. There were, however, differences in view points and the extent to which they believed such allegations.
The question of whether or not women are capable of taking on certain responsibilities in society is related to the nature of the female. As such, Aristotle is of primary importance, for it is his views on the nature of women that have dominated Western civilization.
With his ideologies, Aristotle thought he had provided a scientific basis for the traditional Greek belief in female inferiority (Harding & Hintikka 2003).
He was the first to dominate the western mind with a single theory of the concept of woman and provided a new or original definition of what it meant to be male or female. His views on women superseded those of earlier thinkers and persisted well into the early modern era.
Before Aristotle, there were philosophers who wrote on the subject of women and the female contribution to the reproductive process and his debate with his predecessors focused on the role of male and female in the reproductive process.
Some scholars, however, held that both sexes were responsible for reproduction, a view that was the basis of their belief in some form of equality between the sexes.
Aristotles View on Women
Aristotle was the most influential non Christian source for ideas in many fields up to the seventeenth century. This had very unfortunate effects for women in general (Wiesner 2000, p. 18). Although he was Platos most brilliant student, he disagreed with many of his masters theories.
To Aristotle, women were imperfect men, the result of something wrong with the conception that created them. According to Aristotle, their parents were too young or too old, or too diverse in age, or one of them was not healthy.
Nature always aimed at perfection, and Aristotle termed monstrous, anything less than perfect. A woman was thus a deformity, but one which occurred in the ordinary course of nature.
Aristotles remarks on women are generally regarded as the all-time low of his philosophy and science (Mayhew 2010, p. 1). The problem is not simply that he is wrong, nor is it simply that there are gaps in his reasoning.
The problem, many believe, is that his views about women are the product of an ideological bias and not of honest science.
Besides his remarks on women representing gender prejudice, they are also dangerous and the source of many of the standard western arguments for the inferiority of womankind and political subordination of women to men at home and in society.
In the same spirit, it is evidently the case that Aristotles account of women in particular and of the female gender in general both provide some kind of rationalization or accommodation of widespread Greek social attitudes (Marshall 2004, p. 25).
According to Wiesner (2000, p. 10), Aristotles conception of women is, in general and in many details, false. Frequently, however, too little care is taken over rigorous scholarship on the part of some of his fiercest critics. Often, there is little concern for what precisely his views are on a particular issue.
Nor is there much of concern with presenting support for the claim that his arguments about women are more than rationalization.
There is a great deal of confusion over what Aristotle says in his biological writings about women and whether what he says about them is ideological (Green & Mews 2011).
This may in part be a result of the fact that, until fairly recently, scholars of ancient philosophy have tended to neglect Aristotles biological works including the history of animals, parts of animals, and generation of animals.
Beginning in the twelfth century, theologians and religious writers, generally called scholastics, attempted to bring together the teachings of Aristotle and those of early Christian writers, into one grand philosophical system.
Thomas Aquinas, the most brilliant and thorough of the scholastics, synthesized classical and Christian ideas about women, stating that womens inferiority was not simply the result of Eves actions, but was inherent in her original creation (Green & Mews 2011).
Based on Aristotles ideologies, Aquinas argued that even in procreation, the role of women was quite minimal, since the mother simply provided the material substance in the child while the father supplied the active force (Wiesner 2000, p. 18).
Women needed male assistance in everything because of their physical and intellectual weakness, though they did have souls and so were responsible for their own salvation (Nussbaum 2001, p. 49).
In Aristotles view, women are who they are because of their inability to produce semen (Warren 2008, p. 204). He considers men to be separate from women since they are better and more divine in that they are the principle of movement for generated things, while women serve as their matter.
While still within the mother, a woman takes longer to develop than a man does. However, because women are weaker than men, everything reaches its perfection sooner in women than in men once birth has taken place (Warren 2008, p. 204). We should, therefore, look upon a womans state as though it were a deformity.
Ethically, Aristotle considers man to be the master with many responsibilities such as being the head of the house. Whatever can be suitably performed by the woman is, however, handed to her by the husband. Politically, a husband rules over his wife as a constitutional requirement.
Aristotle also says that the friendship of husband and wife may even be a friendship of virtue, if they are good, for there is a virtue appropriate to each, and they can rejoice in this (Harding & Hintikka 2003).
In Aristotles view, the virtues of women differ in kind and not in freedom from those of men. He thus quotes the popular view that silence brings glory to women (Krikos & Ingold 2004)
Culture and Perceptions on Women
It is not true that every thinker is guilty of rationalization. In fact, everyone is capable of objectivity. This does not, however, imply that a scientist works in a cultural vacuum, under no influence from his intellectual, historical, and social context (Green & Mews 2011).
There are numerous ways in which a cultural context limits or tends to limit a scientist. The nature of the debate and the key issues inherited by a scientist will tend to affect how he approaches an issue as will the state of the evidence and the period of scientific development in which a scientist works.
Furthermore, the nature of society and social roles such as the status of women can create obstacles for the scientist. In Aristotles case, take for example the discussion of womens role in generation.
Because of how the issue was treated by scientists and non scientists, Aristotle discussed generation partly in terms of whether the woman contributed seed to generation (Nussbaum 2001, p. 53).
Moreover, without a microscope, it was simply the case that there were certain conclusions about the nature of generation that he could not reach.
Given the ancient conception of the woman as inferior to the male, there may well have been pressures on Aristotle o view the issue in a certain way, pressures not exerted on a geneticist working in the twenty first century.
Cultural context sets limits to what a scientist can do and creates certain obstacles that may be difficult or even impossible to overcome. An important observation, however, is that a scientist is not trapped in this context (Krikos & Ingold 2004).
The context of his scientific theories is not determined or set in advance by the cultural context. Ones cultural context does not make objectivity impossible, at least not for those who are not ideologically biased.
As a matter of fact, a scientist is quite capable of radically reassessing the views of his predecessors and of his culture (Warren 2008, p. 206). A lack of objectivity is not an inevitable consequence of working in a certain cultural context. It is the result of evasion, dishonesty, or other human failures.
As noted by Mayhew (2010, p. 5), being influenced by ones cultural context is not automatically evidence of ideological rationalization.
For example, while almost all educated people today accept the view that women can philosophize, most people living around the Mediterranean in the fourth century B.C. were of a contrary opinion. This is, however, associated with the fact that they had few examples of women philosophizing (Green & Mews 2011).
Certainly, if this enormous lack of evidence for some belief is included in the meaning of social causation, then it provides no evidence of rationalization. As such, an ancient Greek denying the possibility of female philosophers would not necessarily involve any such false consciousness.
A further investigation can lead to the conclusion that a particular thinker who holds an obnoxious belief is excused of the charge of bias because of the cultural context within which he was working (Allen 2006, p. 115).
Of course, if a thinker is cleared of such a charge, it does not mean that his ideas were formed or even deformed without any inclusion from the cultural context within which he was working.
Although some people might hold that any negative view of women is acceptable, it may be necessary to consider whether a given negative claim in fact supports the interests of men at the expense of the interests of women (Foley 2009, p. 19).
For example, one might posit that Aristotles claim that women contribute less to generation than men would affect how women are viewed and treated.
In the present era, if a philosopher or scientist down played the role of women in generation, we would immediately reject the assumption as baseless and assume some kind of bias with a great deal of justification.
It may, however, be wrong to immediately assume bias on the part of an ancient Greek thinker who made such claims considering that an ancient Greek biologist lacked a microscope and a long history of biological research to build on (Landau 2010, p. 22).
It may very well be the case that, in ancient Mediterranean cultures around the time of Aristotle, women neither philosophized nor ruled.
Conclusion
Aristotles portrait of women is of tremendous importance in Western thought. It became a guide for attitudes to women in general, and because of his influence as a person, it became entrenched in Western culture.
It should be noted, however, that there are other important and interesting accounts of Aristotles ideologies that make his views on women to appear very complex. For example, his understanding of women in the political world leads to a vision of hierarchy, but not submission on all levels.
Although Aristotle does think that women are by nature inferior to men, he also thinks that there are many cases where nature does not fulfill itself, and in these, women may be superior to men (Wiesner 2000, p. 55). Thus, although men are superior to women by nature, not all men are better than all women.
Moreover, Aristotle notes that men are rendered superior to women also by convention, but as in his discussion of slaves, he thinks that convention can be problematic.
In the modern society, however, arguments presented by Aristotle to advance his ideologies can not be easily accepted. Numerous examples exist to show that women can actually perform better than men in a number of ways. Whether in politics, education, or at work, negative attitudes about women are quickly fading away.
Reference List
Allen, P 2006, The Concept of Woman: The Early Humanist Reformation, 1250-1500, Part 2, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
Foley, HP 2009, Female Acts in Greek Tragedy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Green, K & Mews CJ 2011, Virtue Ethics for Women 12501500, Springer Publishing, New York.
Harding, SG & Hintikka, MB 2003, Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Springer Publishing, New York.
Krikos, LA & Ingold, C 2004, Womens Studies: A Recommended Bibliography, Libraries Unlimited, Westport, CT.
Landau, I 2010, Is Philosophy Androcentric?, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.
Marshall, T 2004, Aristotles Theory of Conduct, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, MT.
Mayhew, R 2010, The Female in Aristotles Biology: Reason or Rationalization, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Nussbaum, MC 2001, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, Part 2, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Warren, KJ 2008, An Unconventional History of Western Philosophy: Conversations Between Men and Women Philosophers, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MA.
Whaley, LA 2003, Womens History as Scientists: A Guide to the Debates, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California.
Wiesner, ME 2000, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europa, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Do you want to learn about the views of Aristotle vs Socrates on virtue? Read this essay and get an insight into the main differences in how Socrates and Aristotle defined virtue in their ethical theories.
Today people build their society and relations in it on the principles of ethics which were developed by such philosophers as Socrates and Aristotle in the ancient times. One of the main principles on which the ethical school is based is the notion of virtue as the representation of the moral perfectness of a man.
Moreover, virtue can also be defined as the way which a man should follow to live the better life which is full of light and goodness. Socrates and Aristotle are considered as the founders of the ethic principles. Socrates was the first who determined the notion of virtue, and Aristotle developed his own vision with basing on Socrates viewpoint.
Thus, there are many similarities in the philosophers interpretation of virtue, but there is also a significant difference in their approaches to the discussion of virtue which is influential for the organization of their ethical systems. This important difference is in determining the source of virtue as the moral category.
Socratic Virtue
Socrates considers virtue as the basis for understanding peoples morality. Virtue can be thought of as the complex of the best human qualities and traits which he develops consciously. Socrates determines four main virtues which exist in peoples lives.
They are prudence (or personal wisdom), justice, temperance, and fortitude (Taylor, 2001). Following these four virtues is the mens chance to live the better life because they are connected with all the aspects of peoples living including civil life and military service.
However, a man cannot follow the principles of a virtuous life consciously when he does not know them. That is why to live a moral life, it is necessary to know what the virtue is. Having determined four main virtues, Socrates states that prudence can be considered as the major one which is the source for developing justice, temperance, and fortitude.
His arguments depend on his opinion that prudence (or wisdom) is associated with the human intelligence or reason, and intelligence is the knowledge (Taylor, 2001). Thus, Socrates understands virtue and the way to it as the knowledge.
According to Socrates, the real morality and virtue is the knowledge of what is good and what is bad (Taylor, 2001). The understanding of virtue as good is the way to reach the persons moral satisfaction and live the happy life. A man can acquire such virtues as prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude when he spends a lot of time trying to learn and perceive the world around him and developing oneself.
The humans perception is his knowledge about oneself and the reality. It is possible to learn to live a virtuous life as persons learn any other norms and rules. Socrates considers virtues and the moral norms and rules which are based on them as eternal and unalterable. Analyzing Socrates visions of virtue, it is possible to say that he understands the knowledge as the source for developing virtues the main of which is prudence as the reflection of persons intelligence (Taylor, 2001).
Aristotelian Virtue
Aristotle develops Socrates principles associated with the notion of virtue and presents his own structure of humans moral categories which form the ethics. Thus, Aristotle understands virtue is the balance or golden mean between two possible extremes in actions and thoughts (Curzer, 2012). That person who is virtuous should know where this golden mean is and act according to it in order to achieve the goal to live the happy life.
Happiness is the notion which Aristotle combines with the idea of virtues because virtue is the humans way to his happiness and the part of happiness as the whole one. Happiness as a result of following a virtuous life is also the part of the persons life when his mind controls his will, feelings, and emotions and points the good way to happiness (Curzer, 2012).
Moreover, Aristotle determines much more virtues which influence the peoples life. They are liberality, truthfulness, friendliness, forgiveness, integrity and some others which form the persons morality (Gottlieb, 2011).
According to Aristotle all the virtues can be divided into intellectual and moral. Thus, intellectual virtues are affected by the peoples wisdom and their will to follow them. Moral virtues are connected with the emotional nature of humans (Gottlieb, 2011). They depend on the peoples desire, will, and motives to realize them.
Virtue is the moral category which can be considered as the motivation for persons actions and behavior. Therefore, Aristotle understands persons will, desire, and motivation as the main basis for virtue, but not the knowledge (Curzer, 2012).
Aristotle vs Socrates
Socrates and Aristotle develop the knowledge of virtue as goodness and the combination of the persons best traits, but their approaches to the issue of the source of virtues are quite opposite to each other and form the main difference in their visions of virtue as the moral category. Socrates opinion that the knowledge is the single source of virtue is argued by his successors.
The idea that virtue is knowledge of what the agents good is, and the agents good is knowledge is rather controversial because it appeals only to the rational on in humans and rejects the fact of their emotional causes for actions (Taylor, 2001, p. 69). Socrates does not differentiate between the knowledge and its usage.
He considers that a person can act badly and without following the principles of virtuous life only because of the fact he does not know these principles. This opinion can be considered as rather idealistic because it rejects the natural peculiarities of the peoples behavior which are based on the affective part of the personality (Taylor, 2001).
Aristotles vision of the virtues source can be considered as more realistic in comparison with Socrates one. He is the first philosopher who develops the moral principles with focusing on the voluntary aspect of personality. The knowledge has the general character, and the action is a result of the personal will.
Being influenced by the knowledge, virtues and morality depend on will and desire to live a virtuous life. It is possible to know what is good, but it is important to want to follow goodness (Gottlieb, 2011). It is important to notice that that person who has the knowledge about virtues can have no desire to develop them and to follow them even if she knows these moral principles.
That is why Aristotles theory of virtue is relevant to contemporary life in detail, not just in general approach (Curzer, 2012, p. 4). Aristotles viewpoint that virtues in action are the effects of persons will can be considered as more plausible in comparison with Socrates idea on the rational character of virtues.
Conclusion
The notion of virtue is the basic category of the ethics which was developed by Socrates and Aristotle. The main principles of virtues provided by these philosophers have many similarities in relation to virtue as the moral category, but the main difference is in Socrates and Aristotles vision of the source of virtue.
Socrates presents the idealistic visions of goodness depending only on the knowledge when Aristotle examines all the aspects of this notion and focuses on the voluntary factor. Aristotles idea can be considered as more reliable because it depends on the natural characteristics of personality.
References
Curzer, H. J. (2012). Aristotle and the virtues. USA: Oxford University Press.
Gottlieb, P. (2011). The virtue of Aristotles ethics. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. C. W. (2001). Socrates: A very short introduction. USA: Oxford University Press.