Plato vs. Aristotle: Ultimate Smackdown

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I’ve been a part of CAF for a little bit but haven’t dared to start a new thread—just spent my time answering/repsonding to other threads. But I’ve decided to go out on a limb and start a thread:

Ok, folks, simple question (and I don’t know if this has been asked before but I haven’t gone THAT far back in the “records” here):

Greater philosopher: Plato or Aristotle???

In the sense of “better.” Not “most influential.”

MY take—As to the matter of “most influential,” I would definitely say Plato.

Whitehead said it best: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”

He also has been posited as having “anticipated” the Christian God (i.e., his discussions of THE ONE who rules the Universe).

On the downside: Plato has been accused of condoning totalitarianism, eugenics, and classism/snobbery (i.e., just read The Republic). He also just plain did not like rule by the people. AND he basically altered the “historical” Socrates and replaced him with a “Socrates as a mouthpiece to Platonic ideas.”

Aristotle WAS tremendously influential, but mostly on the scientific side and ethical/moral level (as well as literature/drama criticism). His empirical and investigative approach, as well as his PostPriori approach (theorizing from evidence) inaugurated or at least anticipated the modern scientific method. There were very little subjects he did not write or speak about. He truly was a “Universal Man.”
Dante had cause to declare him “The Master of those who Know.”

On the other hand, Aristotle was unquestioningly accepted and “overrevered” WAY, WAY beyond his proper time. For Thousands of years his writings and findings were accepted mutley and without question—even as late as three hundred years ago. A lot of the cataclysms of the sixteenth-century Renaissance were over the tension between “New findings/ideas versus what Aristotle said.” Witness the way Galileo treats the Aristotelian “Simplissimo” character in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Brutal stuff. He also defended slavery (as did Plato, to be honest).
He also though what we call “the mind” lay in the heart.
Plato posited an afterlife, Aristotle did not.

Once again, I believe the most “influential” was Plato.

Who do YOU think was the “Influential” and “Greatest.” I’ll step back and let you guys talk it out.

 

[Katholish]

Aristotle. Hands down.

His greatness doesn’t lie in his natural science, but in his logic and epistemology both of which are almost fundamental to Catholic thought for the past 700 years.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t think either of those two were the greatest; but pitting them against one another I would have to say Aristotle is without doubt superior; but only due to my preferance for ontology; which Aristotle was superior at than Plato.

I do think it’s unfair to say his works were accepted mutely without challenge; the sheer volume of commentaries on Aristotle; from Averroes to Lombard testify to the fact that his works were respected; but not always agreed with.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Aristotle. Hands down.

His greatness doesn’t lie in his natural science, but in his logic and epistemology both of which are almost fundamental to Catholic thought for the past 700 years.

I do agree his influence in Logic was enormous. But on the sense of “spiritual thought,” Plato still wins. Remember, Aristotle thought there WAS no life after death.
If anybody knows differently, please correct me. Seriously.

I WILL agree with this, though: without Aristotle, Aquinas would have had a MUCH different impact on Church thought than he has now.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I don’t think either of those two were the greatest; but pitting them against one another I would have to say Aristotle is without doubt superior; but only due to my preferance for ontology; which Aristotle was superior at than Plato.

I do think it’s unfair to say his works were accepted mutely without challenge; the sheer volume of commentaries on Aristotle; from Averroes to Lombard testify to the fact that his works were respected; but not always agreed with.

The Church as a whole, though, under most circumstances, tended to reference and accept Aristotle without a lot of question during most of its history. You’re right, though, that there “commentaries” on Aristole that questioned a lot of what he taught—those were (mostly) from people NOT directly a associated with Church Hierarchy and policy.

 

[JohnDamian]

I do agree his influence in Logic was enormous. But on the sense of “spiritual thought,” Plato still wins. Remember, Aristotle thought there WAS no life after death.
If anybody knows differently, please correct me. Seriously.

It is implicit in Aristotle that an afterlife of sorts exists; see the following;

Physics Bk II, cap. ii - That we are in some way the end of all things
Nicomachean Ethics, BK 1, Cap.vii - That beatitude is eternal
De Anima, II cap. i- That the soul is “the act of the natural organised body”
Nicomachean Ethics, Bk X, cap viii - That mans happiness consist in understanding
De Anima II, ii Cap. v-xii - That all organs determine to sensibles

De Anima ii, cap ii The intellect differs from the rest as what is eternal differs from what is perishable"

And so on.

The Church as a whole, though, under most circumstances, tended to reference and accept Aristotle without a lot of question during most of its history. You’re right, though, that there “commentaries” on Aristole that questioned a lot of what he taught—those were (mostly) from people NOT directly a associated with Church Hierarchy and policy.

When we talk about theologians such as Aquinas; they presuppose philosophy; as it is prior to theology.

Church Philosophers such as Francis Mayrones; Ockham; Lombard; Alexander of Hales; Duns Scotus; Henry of Ghent in particular; and others in general are somewhat more critical in accepting Aristotle without question.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

It is implicit in Aristotle that an afterlife of sorts exists; see the following;

Physics Bk II, cap. ii - That we are in some way the end of all things
Nicomachean Ethics, BK 1, Cap.vii - That beatitude is eternal
De Anima, II cap. i- That the soul is “the act of the natural organised body”
Nicomachean Ethics, Bk X, cap viii - That mans happiness consist in understanding
De Anima II, ii Cap. v-xii - That all organs determine to sensibles

De Anima ii, cap ii The intellect differs from the rest as what is eternal differs from what is perishable"

And so on.

When we talk about theologians such as Aquinas; they presuppose philosophy; as it is prior to theology.

Church Philosophers such as Francis Mayrones; Ockham; Lombard; Alexander of Hales; Duns Scotus; Henry of Ghent in particular; and others in general are somewhat more critical in accepting Aristotle without question.

Thanks for the information, John Damian. Unlike soem folks, I have NO problem being “corrected” or learning something new regarding a question.

One thing, though—Aristolte, from what I have studied, taught that the sould COULD NOT exist independently of the body. Therefore, if the soul could NOT exist independently from the body, WHERE did it go to after death??? It seems he was implying that it could not go ANYWHERE but simply died with the body (shades of Epicurianism).

Again, please enlighten me if I’m wrong.

As example to the above, the following was copied from a site-------------

A key question for the ancient Greeks (as it still is for many people today) is whether the soul can exist independently of the body. (Anyone who believes in personal immortality is committed to the independent existence of the soul.) Plato (as we know from the Phaedo) certainly thought that the soul could exist separately. Here is what Aristotle has to say on this topic:
. . . the soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind (414a20ff).
So on Aristotle’s account, although the soul is not a material object, it is not separable from the body. (When it comes to the intellect, however, Aristotle waffles. See DA III.4)

Aristotle’s picture is not Cartesian:

There is no inner/outer contrast. The soul is not an inner spectator, in direct contact only with its own perceptions and other psychic states, having to infer the existence of a body and an “external” world.
There is thus no notion of the privacy of experience, the incorrigibility of the mental, etc., in Aristotle’s picture.

The soul is not an independently existing substance. It is linked to the body more directly: it is the form of the body, not a separate substance inside another substance (a body) of a different kind. It is a capacity, not the thing that has the capacity.
It is thus not a separable soul. (It is, at most, pure thought, devoid of personality, that is separable from the body on Aristotle’s account.)

Soul has little to do with personal identity and individuality. There is no reason to think that one (human) soul is in any important respect different from any other (human) soul. The form of one human being is the same as the form of any other.
There is, in this sense, only soul, and not souls. You and I have different souls because we are different people. But we are different human beings because we are different compounds of form and matter. That is, different bodies both animated by the same set of capacities, by the same (kind of) soul.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Aristotle. Hands down.

His greatness doesn’t lie in his natural science, but in his logic and epistemology both of which are almost fundamental to Catholic thought for the past 700 years.

Many would say, though that it was REALLY Ockham who really “developed” epistemology—by declaring “only bodies exist.”

 

[The_Exodus]

But on the sense of “spiritual thought,” Plato still wins. Remember, Aristotle thought there WAS no life after death.
If anybody knows differently, please correct me. Seriously.

A quote from The Nichomachean Ethics Chapter 10, concerning contemplation:

“It will in truth, if it is lifelong, constitute perfect happiness. But such an existence might seem too high for human condition. For then man lives no longer as mere man, but only is as far as he possesses some divine character. As high as this principle is above the composite to which it is united, so high is the act of this principle above every other act. Now if the spirit, in relation to man, is something divine, divine likewise is such a life. Hence we must not believe those who counsel man to care only for human affairs and, under pretext that man is mortal, advise him to renounce what is immortal. On the contrary, man must immortalize himself, by striving with all his might to live according to what is most excellent in himself. This principle is higher than all the rest. It is the spirit which makes man essentially man.”

Aristotle is rather agnostic about an afterlife. In many places he says things like “if indeed there is an afterlife” or “since there may be an afterlife”. Although he seemed to deny much of what Plato taught regarding the soul’s immortality, he did indeed seem to at least think it possible for an activity (i.e. thinking) which is particular to the soul to survive after the body’s dissolution. It is, in any case, debatable where he stood.

Personally I cannot choose between the two thinkers. Aristotle is more purely empirical and rational. Yet Plato’s spiritual thought reaches, at times, the sublime (at least to me).

 

[JohnDamian]

Many would say, though that it was REALLY Ockham who really “developed” epistemology—by declaring “only bodies exist.”

Both Averroes Quaestiones in Priora Analytica and Ockhams teacher Duns Scotus Opus Oxoniense I iii 1-2 claim essence and existence are Identical; thus declare only bodies exist.

It seems he was implying that it could not go ANYWHERE but simply died with the body (shades of Epicurianism).

It implies a General ressurrection; the best interpretation of which is in Scotus; “The Spirituality and Immortality of the Soul”; which also draws upon Augustine.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

A quote from The Nichomachean Ethics Chapter 10, concerning contemplation:

“It will in truth, if it is lifelong, constitute perfect happiness. But such an existence might seem too high for human condition. For then man lives no longer as mere man, but only is as far as he possesses some divine character. As high as this principle is above the composite to which it is united, so high is the act of this principle above every other act. Now if the spirit, in relation to man, is something divine, divine likewise is such a life. Hence we must not believe those who counsel man to care only for human affairs and, under pretext that man is mortal, advise him to renounce what is immortal. On the contrary, man must immortalize himself, by striving with all his might to live according to what is most excellent in himself. This principle is higher than all the rest. It is the spirit which makes man essentially man.”

Aristotle is rather agnostic about an afterlife. In many places he says things like “if indeed there is an afterlife” or “since there may be an afterlife”. Although he seemed to deny much of what Plato taught regarding the soul’s immortality, he did indeed seem to at least think it possible for an activity (i.e. thinking) which is particular to the soul to survive after the body’s dissolution. It is, in any case, debatable where he stood.

Personally I cannot choose between the two thinkers. Aristotle is more purely empirical and rational. Yet Plato’s spiritual thought reaches, at times, the sublime (at least to me).

Thanks for that. I’m comfortable with that definition of “agnostic” as describing Aristotle.

Although I also agree with the thought that where he actually stood on the question of “the afterlife” IS “debatable.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Both Averroes Quaestiones in Priora Analytica and Ockhams teacher Duns Scotus Opus Oxoniense I iii 1-2 claim essence and existence are Identical; thus declare only bodies exist.

It implies a General ressurrection; the best interpretation of which is in Scotus; “The Spirituality and Immortality of the Soul”; which also draws upon Augustine.

Thanks for the information about Averrhoes and Scotus, JohnDamian.

I really have not read much of Averrhoes. I know of him primarily as the great Muslim commentator on the Ancients and as the man standing behind Pythagoras (allegedly) in Raphael’s “School Of Athens.”

Scotus I need to reread and thanks for pointing that out. I probably forgot that point. I learned about Scotus primarily for “Being Qua Being,” his notion of Hylomorphism, his great defense of the Immaculate Conception and for his postulation that one need not only “Illumination” for acquiring knowledge (i.e., his emphasis on Natural Knowledge as well) .
And for his being the progenitor of the word “dunce” as well. Poor guy.

One thing,though—many have questioned whether Scotus and Ockham really were “Teacher and Student,” but I assume you agree with that postulation as well.
Like I said, I need to go into Scotus more deeply.

Regarding Episteology—couldn’t you then say that since Averrhoes and Scotus developed the “only bodies exist” epistemology (and Ockham picked it up and expanded it) therefore THEY “developed” epistmology, not Aristotle?
In other words, Aristotle laid the “groundwork,” but Averrhoes and Scotus (and Ockham) “built the core of the building,” so to speak?

That is what I was talking about when I mentioned Ockham and epistemology.
I guess my learning in philosophy is different than yours, John Damian.
I also consulted Wikipedia to refresh my memory concerning Ockham and that is where is where they had the postulation about epistemology and his “development” of it.
Well, we all know about Wikipedia…

You’re right about Augustine and the “resurrection” question. I had totally blanked out on that. Thanks for reminding me.

Yep, definitely need to reread Scotus. A fascinating thinker for all seasons.

You rock, by the way.

 

[JohnDamian]

One thing,though—many have questioned whether Scotus and Ockham really were “Teacher and Student,” but I assume you agree with that postulation as well.
Like I said, I need to go into Scotus more deeply.

It is unlikely that their relationship was face to face; Ockham joined Oxford at least six years after Scotus left; and a year after Scotus died suddenly in Cologne. However it is clear that his lectures were very formative on Ockham, and also both Francis Mayron and Peter Aureolus.

Regarding Episteology—couldn’t you then say that since Averrhoes and Scotus developed the “only bodies exist” epistemology (and Ockham picked it up and expanded it) therefore THEY “developed” epistmology, not Aristotle?

What exactly did Ockham develop?
I haven’t particularily seen anything revolutionary in any of Ockhams work; sure his summa toitus is a sound document; but it pales in comparrison with other Philosophical works in logic; both prior and posterior analytics from Aristotle were more creative and important. I don’t see that Ockham added anything at all really, other than advocating a return to nominalism… Even Proclus was discussing being in such a way nearly a thousand years before Ockham.

That is what I was talking about when I mentioned Ockham and epistemology.
I guess my learning in philosophy is different than yours, John Damian.

Well I just picked up the books and read in chronological order; no external influence telling me what to think about each person