Philosophy Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Philosophy Paper - move ExampleAn in-depth analysis of Aristotles criticism of Plato will necessarily reveal that, in some cases, Aristotle has failed to grasp the heart of Platonic concept of social class. In otherwise cases, it seems that Plato himself failed to predict oppositions such Aristotles criticisms and, thitherfore, to convey some reasonable tenets to the concept of form. For example, he could say that Forms are the replications of the One and Oneness, and as the terms, adept and mevery, are meaningless without one another, form and particulars are meaningless without each other. For human cognitive butt, both are simultaneously necessary, though form precedes physical reality, as one precedes many. Indeed, these tenets are innate to the sentiment of form and they need not be invented rather they need to be discovered. Aristotles criticisms themselves shed limitations therefore, referring to those limitations and proving the effectiveness of the concept of form to explain those limitations, Plato could make his theory of form more self-sufficient. Plato claims that distinct forms of different physical realities exist preliminary to the existence of physical realities. For him, the physical realities are the replicas or facsimiles of the form. He sees it as the ideal essence of the physical existence of things in this world. It is perfect, indivisible, transcendent and immutable. He believes that because of an innate idea of these forms, man can know things as they are. On the other hand, Aristotle complains that though form, as Plato assumes, exists prior to things physical existence, Forms arises even of things of which we think there are no Forms (Socrates 27). He further complains that Platos form is applicable to static images of things (which he often names substance) therefore, it is not applicable to dynamic process of things such dissolution, decay, birth, etc. In Aristotles own words, what on earth the Forms contribute to sensib le things, both to those that are eternal or to those that come into being and cease to be. For they cause neither movement nor any changes in them (Socrates 28). He makes his third criticism on the ground that the substance, which is concrete also, cannot evolve from the abstract, as he says, All other things cannot come from the Forms in any of the usual senses of from (Socrates 34). Aristotles most bare criticism of Aristotle comes in a form of question why should 2 be one and the same in the perishable 2s or in those which are many but eternal, and not the same in the 2 itself as in the particular 2? (Socrates 39) Here, he asks that if two different particulars have something in common, will there be three forms (two for the two particulars and one for the common feature)? Plato could star his refutation of Aristotles criticisms by excavating the essential limitations of Aristotles theory of substance. According to Plato, Forms are as it were patterns fixed in the nature of t hings. The other things are copied from the Forms and are similarities.