Aristotle vs. Plato: Comparing and Contrasting Their Philosophical Views on Nature and Knowledge

Introduction: Aristotle's Conception of Nature

Before comparing and contrasting their views, let's introduce Aristotle, a disciple of Plato, and his understanding of nature (physis). Aristotle sees nature as the internal principle of motion and change within natural beings. Unlike artificial objects, natural beings possess their own source of activity. For instance, a seed growing into a tree is a natural change, while a chair made from the tree is a product of human artistry, not nature.

To explain motion and change without falling into Parmenides's trap (the idea that change is an illusion), Aristotle uses the concepts of potentiality and actuality. The seed is potentially a tree, while the fully grown tree is the actualization of that potential.

According to Aristotle, all natural substances are composed of matter and form, a theory known as hylomorphism. Form is the essence of a substance, what makes it what it is. It also determines the substance's specific activities and explains its changes.

Points of Agreement: Knowledge as Universal

Both Aristotle and Plato view knowledge as a universal understanding of form, identifying it as the fundamental principle of things. However, unlike Plato, Aristotle focuses on the world of individual things, seeking their essence to arrive at universal definitions.

Points of Disagreement

1. Abandonment of the Dialectical Method

Aristotle rejects Plato's dialectic, considering it unnecessary. He replaces it with demonstration, structured as a syllogism. Plato's dialectic involves finding commonalities among diverse ideas, hierarchically arranged. This ascending dialectic moves from lower to higher ideas. Plato also developed a descending dialectic.