Plato vs. Aristotle: Who is The Better Philosopher
Plato vs. Aristotle: The Better Philosopher
© 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com
Along with Socrates(470–399 BC), Plato (427–348 BC) andAristotle (384-322 BC) are Greek philosophers in the ancient period who deeply affected Western philosophy.
Though having political ambitions as a young man, Plato eventually became a student and disciple of Socrates, the most admired and patronized Greek philosopher at the time. Aristotle (384-322 BC) is a philosopher and natural scientist who eventually shared the distinction of being the most famous of ancient philosophers with Socrates and Plato, his (Aristotle’s) teacher. The contemporary theory in Ethics called Virtue Ethics is said to have started with these three great philosophers.
Although the famous Augustine of Hippo (354—430 C.E.) lived and wrote more than 800 years after Plato, Platonism deeply influenced his philosophy. On the other hand, the Italian theologian and another medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) revived, enhanced, and ‘Christianized’ Aristotle’s ideologies. There is thus this prevalent discussion on who the better philosopher is, Plato or Aristotle.
Plato’s Moral Philosophy
Since Plato wrote down and essentially adhered to Socrates’ philosophy, it is practical for us to treat their ethical theories jointly here.
In the dialogue Gorgias written by Plato, Socrates indicates that pleasure and pain fail to provide an objective standard for determining moral from immoral since they do not exist apart from one another, while good and evil do.
In Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro whether something is good because the Greek gods love it, or whether these gods love it because it is good. Socrates’ point is that what is good has a certain independence from the whims of the gods’ determination of the rightness of our actions and mores. Socrates therefore believed in the existence of objective ethical standards though he admitted that it is not that easy to specify them.
Central to Plato’s philosophy is his Theory of Forms—the objectively existing immaterial entities that are the proper object of knowledge. Everything in the material world is what it is by virtue of its resemblance to, or participation in, this universal Form or Idea. These unchanging independent forms are like ideal and stable models of the ordinary observable objects.
Circularity and ‘squareness’ are good examples of what Plato meant by Forms. A thing in the physical world may be called a circle or a square insofar as it resembles or participates the Form “circularity” or “squareness” (Baird, 2009).
Now, since everything in the perceptible realm participates in independent and perfect forms, there is also a form even for moral predicates, such as justice and happiness. The highest of all forms is the form of the Good. For Plato, those who comprehend the Good will always do good actions. Bad actions are performed out of not knowing the Good. To know the Good, nonetheless, requires an austere and intellectually meticulous way of life.
Virtue therefore is regarded as knowledge and can be taught. Knowledge of the Good is considered as the source of guidance in moral decision making that to know the good, it is argued, is to do the good.
Aristotle’s Ethics
At least two of Aristotle’s works specifically concern morality, the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean Ethics. But since only a few have studied the former, the Nicomachean Ethics has been regarded as the Ethics of Aristotle since the beginning of the Christian era.
Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict Aristotle’s ethics:
First, his ethical system may be termed “self-realizationism.” In his philosophy, when someone acts in line with his nature or end (‘telos’) and thus realizes his full potential, he does moral and will be happy.
Second, like Plato’s and most of the other ancient philosophers’ ethical theories, Aristotle’s view is of a type known as eudaimonistic. As such, it focuses on happiness (eudaimonia), or the good for man, and how to obtain it.
Third, his moral philosophy is aretaic,or virtue-based. Whereas act-oriented ethics is focused mainly on what we should do, a virtue ethics is interested basically in what we should be, that is, the character or the sort of person we should struggle to become.
1. Aristotle’s ‘Telos’
A ‘telos’ (from the Greek ‘τέλος’) is an end or purpose. Aristotle believes that the essence or essential nature of beings, including humans, lay not at their cause (or beginning) but at their end (‘telos’).
Aristotle does not agree with Plato’s belief in a separate realm of Forms. Aristotle, instead, argues that rational beings can discover the ‘essences’ of things and that a being’s essence is its potential fulfillment or ‘telos’ (as the essence of an acorn is to become an oak tree). The essence or ‘telos’ of ‘human being’ is rationality and, thus, a life of contemplation (a.k.a. Philosophy) is the best kind of life for true human flourishing.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized in this manner:
“All humans seek happiness (“well being”), but in different ways. True happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of human life. The essence [or ‘telos’] of human beings (that which separates and distinguishes them as a species) is Reason. Reason employed in achieving happiness (human ‘telos’) leads to moral virtues [e.g., courage, temperance, justice and prudence] and intellectual virtues (e.g., `science,’ art, practical wisdom, theoretical wisdom).” (“Aristotle,” n.d.)
In terms of his ethics, Aristotle thus believes in the excellence of philosophical contemplation and virtuous actions stemming from virtuous persons. By virtuous actions, he means those which the person with wisdom would choose because what is good is obvious to such a person.
2. Happiness and Virtues
Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self-realization. This entails achieving one’s natural purpose by functioning or living consistently with human nature. Accomplishing it, in turn, produces happiness; whereas inability to realize it leads to sadness, frustration, and ultimately to poor life. It therefore behooves us to act in accordance with our nature so as to be content and complete. In detail, what does Aristotle mean by human nature?
Aristotle identifies three natures of man: the vegetableor physical, animal or emotional, andrational or mental. As previously explained, the thing that distinguishes humans from all other creatures is the rational nature or the ability to reason. Rational development is thus deemed the most important, as it is uniquely human. Accordingly, living in accordance with reason is viewed as vital in self-realization or developing one’s potential.
This self-realization—the awareness of our nature and the development of our potentials—is the key to human happiness. But what is this happiness in line with Aristotle’s ethical view?
Ethics, for Aristotle,is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that the purpose of studying ethics is to make ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we already want to become good. This human good is eudaimonia or happiness.
Aristotle observed that wise persons seek an end that is self-sufficient, final, and attainable over one’s life. This end is happiness which all human beings want. Aristotle also considers happiness as the summum bonum – the greatest good of all human life. He adds that it is the only intrinsic good, that is, the good that is pursued for its own sake. While all other things, such as pleasure, wealth, and honor, are merely means to an end, happiness is man’s ultimate goal as it is an end in itself.
Compared to Plato’s philosophy, it is happiness (eudaimonia), not the Form of the Good, which is the supreme good with which Aristotle’s ethics is concerned. (Some even claim that Aristotle’s ethics is Plato’s moral philosophy minus the Theory of Forms.) Aristotle indeed holds that the supreme good in ethics cannot be identified with the Idea of the Good because ethics is a practical science whereas the immutable Idea of the Good could only be of theoretical interest. But agreeing with Plato, Aristotle believes that there is an essential connection between living happily and living virtuously.
In fact, Aristotle fundamentally connects happiness to virtues, as he explains happiness in terms of activities manifesting the virtues. Human good, he says, is the activity of the soul in accordance with excellence or virtue. Aristotle’s happiness, therefore, is not much of a subjective feeling of well-being, but human well-being itself, being the human good. Moreover, his account of eudaimonia is different from hedonist and utilitarian account of happiness as pleasure.
3. Virtue as Habit
Aristotle’s idea of happiness should also be understood in the sense of human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and intellectual excellences, or ‘virtues’.
Related to self-realization, acting in line with virtues is acting in accordance with reason. The function of human being, accordingly, consists in activities which manifest the best states of his rational aspect, that is the virtues.
Aristotle employs the word ‘hexis’ to refer to moral virtue. One denotation of the term ‘hexis’ is being an active state, a condition in which something must actively hold itself. Virtue, thus, manifests itself in action. More explicitly, an action counts as virtuous, according to Aristotle, when a person holds oneself in a stable equilibrium of the soul, in order to select the action knowingly and for its own sake. This stable equilibrium of the soul is what constitutes character.
Moral virtue, for Aristotle, is the only practical road to effective action. The virtuous person, who has good character, sees truly, judges rightly, and acts morally.
4. Virtues and the Golden Mean
Virtue refers to an excellence of moral or intellectual character. As mentioned earlier, Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of virtue: virtues of intellectand moral virtues. The first corresponds to the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect; the second pertains to the part of the rational soul which can ‘obey reason’. Moral virtue is an expression of character, formed by habits reflecting repeated choices, hence is also called virtue of character.
For Aristotle, moral virtues follow from our nature as rational beings—they are the traits or characteristics that enable us to act according to reason. But what is acting according to reason?
Acting in a reasonable manner is done when we choose to and indeed act in a way that neither goes to excess nor defect. Excess and defect normally indicate a vice. Virtue lies neither in the vice of deficiency nor in the vice of excess but in the middle ground. Thus, moral virtue is the golden mean between the two less desirable extremes.
Happiness and its opposite play a role in the determination of the golden mean, since we tend to do actions that bring delight and avoid actions that bring agony. The virtuous person is brought up to find enjoyment in virtuous actions and sorrow in vices.
Aristotle mentions four basic moral virtues: courage, temperance, justice and prudence. Courage is the golden mean between cowardice (deficiency) and tactless rashness (excess). The coward has too little bravery, the reckless individual has too much, and the courageous shows just the proper amount of bravery.
Temperance is the mean between gluttony (excess) and extreme frugality (deficiency). Both overindulgence and denying oneself of bodily pleasures make one less happy; whereas practicing temperance makes one virtuous and fulfilled. This directly exemplifies the connection between being happy and being virtuous.
Justice is the virtue of giving others right what they deserve, neither more nor less. Now, what helps us to know what is just or reasonable in various circumstances, enabling us to keep away from excess and defect is the moral virtue called prudence or wisdom.
The question why we should be moral was also answered by Aristotle by his doctrine of virtues. By simply including justice or morality among his list of virtues, he implies that man has to be moral. Additional moral virtues include generosity, civility, trustworthiness, reliability, sociability, dependability, honesty, sincerity, gentleness, tolerance, benevolence, cooperativeness, empathy, tact, kindness, and good temper.
Aristotle nonetheless admits that some actions, such as adultery, theft, and murder, do not admit of a mean and are always wrong. We could never excuse anyone for committing just the right amount of murders, nor defend someone for committing adultery with the right person at the right time in the right way. In the same vein, no culture considers envy, spite, dishonesty, insensitivity, cruelty, arrogance, injustice, cowardice, self-centeredness, and the like to be virtues.
5. ‘Phronesis’ and Practice
In using the golden mean to become virtuous, we must recognize not only that the mean is neither too much nor too little but also it is ‘relative to us’ as moral agents. What constitutes the right amount of something may differ from person to another. Aristotle knows that the right amount of food for a 6-footer basketball player is different from the right amount of food for a 3-footer, thin 12-year old boy. In learning to avoid excess and defect, we thus have to find out for ourselves what the right amount is in our respective unique case and situation. But what determines what is appropriate for us in a particular circumstance?
Aristotle teaches about an intellectual virtue that plays a significant role in Ethics. The phronesis, the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom, is that kind of moral knowledge which guides us to what is appropriate in conjunction with moral virtue.
This phronesis or practical wisdom is a grasp of the appropriate way to respond—to feel and act—in a particular situation. Once we have learned the proper amount of some kind of action through moral virtue and practical wisdom, then, we have ‘the right prescription’ (orthos logos). To be virtuous therefore is to act in accordance with the right prescription.
But acting appropriate to the right prescription should be understood in terms of practice, training, or cultivation. To be virtuous one must perform the actions that habitually bring virtue. A person must practice and develop the virtue of generosity, for instance, so that acting generously becomes habitual. Moral education thus comprises imitation(say, parents and teachers), internalization, and practice until it becomes normal.
Aristotle’s complete picture of a morally virtuous man therefore is someone who constantly and habitually acts according to moral virtue and practical wisdom, ideally exhibiting a lifetime of rational living and avoidance of vice, thereby forming an ethical character, achieving self-realization, and thus realizing happiness and human good. His comprehensive notion of moral virtue is that it is a state of character manifested in choice and action, resting in the golden mean, resolved by the prescription that a wise person would determine.
An Evaluation of Plato and Aristotle’s Moral Philosphy
To begin with, we can say that Socrates and Plato, based on their ethical theory, advocate a positive view of man. Their philosophy implies that human beings who behave immorally do so out of ignorance of the Good. All vice therefore is the result of lack of knowledge, and that no person is willingly bad.
Concerning this, we can however comment that punishing bad deeds has no place in their theory, since bad actions are not blameworthy in the strict sense. In fairness though, perseverance is encouraged in their views as they hold that knowing the Good—the key not to engage in bad actions—demands an abstinent and intellectually painstaking way of life.
Obviously, being moral, virtuous, and just is equated with being knowledgeable of the Good, as it is claimed that those who know the right will act rightly. In addition, morality is essentially linked to happiness. A just person is said to have a proper balance among the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of his soul. With such a well-ordered soul, the just person is said to be the truly happy one—far happier than the wicked, whatever material advantages the unjust person enjoys, and no matter what difficulties or poor status the moral person suffers. This therefore answers the question, “Why I should be moral?” The beauty of this ethical theory is that it inspires people to be moral as it teaches that morality is a recipe to real happiness.
Against Plato’s Form, the usual comment is that there could be no such thing, and that even if there were, it would be of no help in an ethical inquiry into the good for human beings. Nonetheless, this very nonfigurative theory serves as one of the pioneers in advocating the widely accepted moral realism or objectivism in meta-ethics. Among others, it teaches that there are moral truths whose truth is independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions or society’s beliefs and customs.
Comparatively, Aristotle’s concept of virtue is more active than that of Plato’s. Whereas Plato equates virtue with mere knowledge of the Form of the Good, Aristotle considers virtue not as innate or something taught by a teacher to a student, but that which is acquired by practice and lost by disuse. Virtue therefore does not come naturally and becoming virtuous is an achievement, not a natural endowment.
Aristotle’s ethics therefore can be deemed better for it distinguishes ‘doing right’ from ‘knowing what is right’—moral actions are consequences of having our moral character properly developed, not of mere grasping the Good. Moreover, it encourages constantly performing moral actions as it considers morality as a life-time project.
By teaching to avoid both the excessive and the deficient, Aristotle’s moral view is more ethically practical, particular, and applicable. In a particular social setting, it identifies the mean which should be adopted, and the extremes which should be avoided. In self-expression, for instance, it teaches that one should be truthful (mean) and avoid being boastful (excess) and meek (defect). In social relations, it promotes being friendly, but not flattering and rude. In spending money, one must be thrifty, but not prodigal and tight.
Aristotle could also better explain accountability and responsibility. He does not share Socrates’ view of bad deeds as mere ignorance of the Good. Instead, he believes that when we do something we know to be wrong, this involves a temporary suppression of that knowledge. We are thus held responsible for our actions. Furthermore, mistakes are anticipated in Aristotle’s view and acknowledged as learning opportunities.
On the negative side, Aristotle’s doctrine of practical wisdom in determining what is good for someone in a particular instance opens the door to bias, prejudice, and subjectivism. Giving so much room to individual judgment, the doctrine could be used to justify one’s every decision, regardless of its effects to other people and society.
We can also question the applicability of the doctrine of moderation. In some occasions, the right thing is to do the extreme thing. During wars, tragedies, crises, and other emergencies, moderate actions are not always the best ones. Likewise, some virtues obviously should not be expressed in moderation. We wonder if someone would consent that his/her spouse would love him/her only moderately. Also, should we be grateful, truthful, or generous only moderately?
Besides, there is no universal agreement on what is moderate. Aristotle, for example, considered humility a vice, while Christians deem it as a virtue. Likewise, virtues can be construed very differently. Fairness, for instance, can hardly be practically defined without disagreements.
Finally, Aristotle’s prescription on being moral, as it is ideal and theoretical, can be regarded as complex and tough. Being virtuous for him denotes doing what is right, to the right person, at the right moment, in the appropriate amount, in the correct manner, for the right reason. (Copyright © 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com).
For STUDENTS’ ASSIGNMENT:
Write your COMMENT here: Distinguish a Holistic Perspective from a Partial Point of View
Also Check Out: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog
Read: Interesting Info About Plato
So, for you, who is the better philosopher: Plato or Aristotle?
NOTE TO STUDENTS: If the comment section fails to function, just SHARE this article to your social media account (Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc) and start the conversation there.
=====
To post comment, briefly watch this related short video:
To STUDENTS: Write your ASSIGNMENT here: Comments of RATIONAL STUDENTS