Plato vs Aristotle

There is a famous Raphael’s painting showing the contrast between Plato and Aristotle by means of their philosophical differences on the centre in the ancient Athenian academia. Plato pointing out above indicates his idealism whilst Aristotle pointing out below indicates his naturalism (disagreeing to describe his philosophy as realism). This passionate academic arena is indeed the place to visit if there were a time-machine.

The significant distinction between Plato and Aristotle is their focus on the human nature; Plato believed in something more transcendent to the human nature whereas Aristotle puts emphasis on the inevitable unchangeable human nature. Plato manifested the single ideal state model (Stratified guardian/spectator autocracy) meanwhile Aristotle described various unique state models adaptable to each unique nature of geo-politics and ethnicity (Monarchy/Dictatorship, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, and (Direct) Democracy.)

Plato’s Predecessor Socrates was the first remarkable idealist insisting on the moral universalism which all human individuals should aspire to follow to accomplish a unified ideal objective transcending to the human nature forming their living environment. By contrast, Aristotle admitted there is an inevitable but productive human nature underlining to form their characteristics and adaptation to the changing living environment. Plato claimed for the better alternative whereas Aristotle suggested for various unique states for each varying environmental condition.

This conflict model of the philosophical perspectives has been a universally discussed topic all over the world since then. Even in the Eastern Asia, there is a philosophical contract resemblance to this Western counterpart: Confucian is the idealist pursuing for the universal transcendental objective like Plato whilst Daoism describing various unique forms naturally adapted to each situation. In the modern era, even though the philosophical perspectives offer far more complex theory with a bigger picture, the same conflicting concept still remains.

In the modern era, there are many derivations partially adopting both Platonian and Aristotelian concepts. Thomas Hobbes based his theory on the moral relativism while adopting the Platonian-like stratified autocratic order providing the strong unity of all the individuals. Jeremy Bentham insisted on the moral universalism of pursuing the unified objective although its principle is derived from the conventional human nature instead of the transcendental alternative while supporting a more democratic state.

Kant achieved in providing the far more complex theory of its moral universalism than Plato. Considering Plato only discussed something A and something not-A, Kant clarified something defining and verifying the existence of both A and not-A as a priori which is resemblance to mathematical axiom. Then, instead of the substantial principle such as the guardian autocracy, he claimed for the abstract principle for something human individuals are supposed to obey. Then, regardless of any political form of states existing depending on each unique environmental condition, human individuals are supposed or encouraged at least to obey the universal abstract ethical principle as their maxim for accomplishing their ethically ideal goal little by little with try and error.

Kantian philosophy is rather called Conceptualism distinguished from Platonic idealism due to its flexibility as well as its complexity. Kant admitted some real substantial world obstacles disrupting individuals to establish an ideal state although he suggested they should make their best effort to accomplish their ideal transcendental to their conventional natural quality. Friedrich Hegel modified Kantian philosophy by adopting Platonic idealist concept. Hegel affirmed that human individuals are gradually evolving to establish their heavenly ideal state by referring to their ethical maxim.

David Hume can be seen as the first remarkable philosopher challenging against the aforementioned Socratic successors. Hume took over Hobbesian moral relativist perspectives while defying to manifest one particular form of state like Hobbes. Hume’s philosophy is definitely opposing to Plato by means of being sceptical about both the morality which human individuals can hypothetically define to impose upon themselves and the existence of something transcendental to the human nature without experiencing to explicitly prove their existence in real.

Kant started inventing his philosophy as the counterpart argument against Hume’s Experimentalist philosophical theory. Hume’s theory has influenced Benthamite Utilitarian philosophy by means of its emphasis on the naturalism and by means of its scepticism about the non-natural transcendental moral principle although Hume and Bentham disagreed with each other by means of their moral theory. It has also seemingly influenced the postmodern philosophies which are very similar to Hume’s perspective on the moral principle and the human nature because both support the moral relatives and the human naturalism.

In the postmodern era, there were many postmodernist philosophers introducing their own version of the pre-Socratic concepts detaching philosophies from both the idealism and the moral universalism. They often defied the universal nature of human individuals which Aristotle claimed for. Although they are reactionary to the post-Socratic philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and aforementioned modern philosophers, their reaction took place as the counterarguments against the post-Socratic philosophies so that the influence of Plato and Aristotle cannot be ignored even in their reactionary attitude.

In conclusion, regardless of which perspective, Platonic or Aristotelian, to take and of challenging against both of them, none can escape from the influence of Plato (the legitimate Socrates’s predecessor) and Aristotle (the post-Socratic influencer). Without these two legends, the entire human world history would have been a really different by means of its characteristics as well as its quality. This dichotomic theoretical development has trained human individuals to enable their world view to rationally analyse themselves and their living world to encourage their evolution.