Plato and Aristotle a Comparative Study
...y true shadow of a table? How does Plato explain the ashes? Are they still a reflection of a table? Plato doesn’t account for the difference in the nature of two objects of the same definition and the changes that can happen to those objects under various circumstances. What if you have never even seen a table before? How could you possibly know what the ideal form is? Plato’s philosophy assumes a priori knowledge of the ideal forms. However he does not provide any proof that a priori knowledge exists. For example if a person had never seen a table before it is not likely that they would automaticly understand what it is or understand its purpose. On the other hand, Aristotle says that if you examine the components of an object you can achieve a verifiable understanding of that object. For instance if you take apart a wooden and a metal table you can see the obvious similarities and differences between the two. For example they both have four legs and a flat top capable of supporting other objects. However one is made of material that burns and the other is not. Aristotle classifies his objects into categories that are defined by components and purpose .This allows an explanation for a table that burns and one that does not. They share the same purpose but they are comprised of different components. This would give birth to a category. Plato says that in order to understand a form you must have a priori understanding of what the form is before being able to explain it. But that doesn’t really make much sense. This argument is indefensible when countered by the simple response, “Prove it”. The last two paragraphs have discussed the problem Plato’s philosophy has with explaining changes to an object and recognizing an object that you may never have seen before. There is another fundamental problem. Plato is incapable of explaining the relationship between a form and a thing in itself. There just isn’t any concrete proof that any form exists. They can’t be seen or touched. If you can’t prove the existence of a form how is it possible to explain the relationship between a form and an object. What mysterious bond exists between something for which there is no proof and something that sits before you as an object in the world. Aristotle’s Philosophy allows you to compare the definition of an object by referring to the verifiable principles that comprise that category of objects. For instance you could take apart any table and declare it a table because it substantially...