Who was more "right;" Aristotle or Plato?

[Hastrman]

And it was our choice and we took responsibility for it… not wailing about how “unlucky we are”.

Well I’m very impressed that someone whose brain produces seratonin did something so brave. Unfortunately before I ever got that far I’d have had another nervous breakdown, and very nearly gone catatonic. But that’s not something you’ve ever experienced.

Strange… you try to get sympathy wailing about your personal problems and blaming others for not wanting to accept slavery… you sure are one strange person. Get your behind off from the couch and get a job… that is called accepting responsibility.

I’m in college, thanks, so I can get a job.

And your insensitive, ignorant, philosophical illiteracy has come to be too much for me. I’m adding you to my ignore list.

 

[ateista]

Well I’m very impressed that someone whose brain produces seratonin did something so brave. Unfortunately before I ever got that far I’d have had another nervous breakdown, and very nearly gone catatonic. But that’s not something you’ve ever experienced.

No, it is not. I guess I am lucky to have a healthy disposition and I was and I am able to deal with my own problems without blaming others.

I’m in college, thanks, so I can get a job…

I am happy to hear that.

And your insensitive, ignorant, philosophical illiteracy has come to be too much for me. I’m adding you to my ignore list.

Go for it. That is not a very “convincing” argument, I am sure you realize. But, maybe not… anyhow it is your problem, not mine…

 

[Hastrman]

No, it is not. I guess I am lucky to have a healthy disposition and I was and I am able to deal with my own problems without blaming others.

I knew I shouldn’t have read this post, but…

It is not a healthy “disposition”. Your endocrine system functions properly, mine doesn’t. You’re basically sneering at a diabetic, you callous imbecile.

And I didn’t blame anyone else for my problems. I’m trying to deal with them. You don’t need medicine to be able to put a thought out of your mind, I do. And yet I’m capable of reasoning about things, and not simply, arbitrarily, deciding that some subjects are forbidden, because I don’t grasp the philosophy involved.

Don’t you ever look down on me.

 

[Hastrman]

No, it is not. I guess I am lucky to have a healthy disposition and I was and I am able to deal with my own problems without blaming others.

I knew I shouldn’t have read this post.

It has nothing to do with my disposition, though. My endocrine system does not produce enough of the neurotransmitter seratonin. Tell me, do you also sneer at diabetics for not being able to handle “a little sugar?”

 

[ateista]

I knew I shouldn’t have read this post.

It has nothing to do with my disposition, though. My endocrine system does not produce enough of the neurotransmitter seratonin. Tell me, do you also sneer at diabetics for not being able to handle “a little sugar?”

I did not snicker at you. I felt sorry for you.

I was just wondering how can you “crave” the safe and secure positions of those helots, while sitting in a nice dwelling, typing away on your computer accessing the internet and bickering about the horrors of “libertarian capitalism” which gave you these wonderful implements at a ridiculously low price.

The picture is priceless.

 

[ficino]

Is this a trick question?

I will happily proselytize for Plato. The basic issue is this: Aristotle excelled – an extraordinary genius – at logical analysis. And so did Plato.

But Plato did something more: he addressed the ecstatic and mystical element of human nature and human knowledge. For Plato, that we as human beings are spiritual entities, and know things in extra-rational modalities is essential to his philosophy.

As but one example: for Plato, philosophy was indeed philo-*sophia *-- love of wisdom. And this love even has an erotic dimension to it. It has an emotional or affective component. That is not found in cut-and-dried Aristotle, however excellent his logical analysis may have been.

Plato’s works occupy a pinnacle of literary and artistic achievement as well as being philosophical works. Through Art + Dialectic, Plato tread where Aristotle could not: on sacred ground.

Through poetry, Plato addressed the greatest yearnings of the human soul, which are mystical, and defy rational analysis.

For Aristotle, philosophy is science; for Plato, philosophy is religion. Modern writers have lost sight of it, but on every page is Plato’s religiosity expressed.

Want an example? Just read Plato’s Chariot allegory in Phaedrus 245c-257b.

I would go so far as to suggest that God allowed the Catholic Church to follow Aristotle for several hundred years as preparation for the greater truths of Plato!

ficino

 

[ficino]

In terms of political and ethical theories, who was more “right,” Plato or Aristotle?

I replied to the poll without seeing the proviso about “relative to political and ethical theories.”

In that case, let me share one of my pet peeves: despite what is usually taught in university courses, there is considerable debate about whether Plato’s Republic is a work of political philosophy at all.

The alternative view is that the Republic is a metaphor for the human soul. Plato even says as much: he introduces the model of a Republic expressly as a way to shed light on the more difficult problem of understanding the ‘governance’ of the human soul. The view is discussed here:

satyagraha.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/politics-inner-and-outer/

This metaphoric reading would explain how Plato could make some obviously absurd statements in the Republic, such as that wives and children should be held communally.

Thus, while I hold Plato as the better philosopher overall, I gladly concede to excellent Aristotle first prize as a political philosopher.

ficino

 

[Feanaro]

I would go so far as to suggest that God allowed the Catholic Church to follow Aristotle for several hundred years as preparation for the greater truths of Plato!

ficino

From my understanding, St. Augustine was said to have “baptized” Plato while St.Thomas Aquinas was said to have “baptized” Aristotle. Therefore, Plato was known in the church prior to Aristotle.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please, people, stick to the topic. Don’t exchange personal insults within the thread. PM one another–and I yes, I do know what I just wrote. Thank you.

 

[ficino]

From my understanding, St. Augustine was said to have “baptized” Plato while St.Thomas Aquinas was said to have “baptized” Aristotle. Therefore, Plato was known in the church prior to Aristotle.

Yes, most definitely. St. Augustine was strongly influenced by Platonism before his conversion. In Confessions (Book 7) he describes his study of “Platonist” books. The common opinion is that St. Augustine did not read Plato directly, but only works by more recent Neoplatonists – specifically, Plotinus or Porphyry, the student of Plotinus. Other Church Fathers with explicitly Platonist ideas include Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Cappadocian fathers, and Ambrose of Milan.

After that, Platonism’s explicit influence receded in the West, due in part, it is often assumed, to lack of Latin translations. However it continued to influence the Western mystical tradition, through the works of the pseudo-Areopagite; these mystical works, which influenced virtually all Catholic mysticism, and which were, for many centuries mistakenly attributed to St. Paul’s companion, Dionysius the Areopagite, were, it is now widely suggested, written by a student of the Neoplatonist Proclus, sometime around 500 AD.

An interesting point is that whereas Platonism *directly *influenced the early and the Eastern Church, it was Neoplatonism, through St. Augustine and the pseudo-Areopagite that most directly influenced Roman Catholicism. That is worth mentioning since Neoplatonism was really a blend of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works: the Neoplatonist’s interpreted Aristotle as continuing Plato’s ideas, and in essential harmony with them.

 

[drafdog]

Neither one. My vote is for the holy Rabbi Gamaliel. He has the advantage over the two cited men because he is of the one true faith.

Matthew

 

[mschrank]

One thing I gotta say real quick is that both Aristotle and Plato defined a “full human” in a different way than we do. Both of these Philosophers defined the measure of one’s humanity insofar as they engage and succeed in doing what humans do.

To a Greek, a cat that couldn’t catch mice would be less catty, because to catch mice is something that makes a cat a “good” cat (i.e., that which performs its function well).

In the same vein, a woman was seen to be less than fully human because they could not do many of the things that only men could do in a preindustrialized, patriarchial society like the Greek polis. For example, work, politics and philosophy. So since women did not engage in those things, they were like the cat held to be less human.

In the classical world, people were what they did, their value was not predicated on inherent value as humans as God’s children (this is a Jewish idea). It was all about reaching up to an idealized level of function.

So its not that Aristotle or Plato hated women, they just did not have a concept of inherent value as we do.

 

[EphelDuath]

How did Augustine “Christianize” Plato and how did Aquinsa “Christianize” Aristotle?

 

[ficino]

How did Augustine “Christianize” Plato…

For starters, there are St. Augustine’s theories of illumination, of the intellect, and of the basic nature of the soul – which are similar to Platonism. Augustine speaks very favorably of “the Platonists” in many of his works. You can get some idea from this heading of City of God 8.5:

Chapter 5.—That It is Especially with the Platonists that We Must Carry on Our Disputations on Matters of Theology, Their Opinions Being Preferable to Those of All Other Philosophers.
Source:
newadvent.org/fathers/120108.htm

Ah – found a good link for you:

Augustine and Platonism
www-personal.umich.edu/~rdwallin/syl/GreatBooks/202.W99/Augustine/AugPlaton.htm

And here is a relevant paragraph from “Augustine” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosohy:

“The single most decisive event, however, in Augustine’s philosophical development has to be his encounter with those unnamed books of the Platonists in Milan in 384 [Confessions VII.9.13]. While there are other important influences, it was his encounter with the Platonism ambient in Ambrose’s Milan that provided the major turning point, reorienting his thought along basic themes that would persist until his death forty-six years later. There has been controversy regarding just which books of the Platonists Augustine encountered [O’Connell 1968, pp. 6-10; O’Donnell 1992, vol. II, pp. 421-423; Beatrice, 1989], but we know from his own account that they were translated by Marius Victorinus [Confessions VIII.2.3], and there is widespread agreement that they were texts by Plotinus and Porphyry, although there is again controversy regarding how much influence is to be attributed to each [O’Connell 1968, pp. 20-26; O’Donnell 1992, vol II, pp. 423-4]. These uncertainties notwithstanding, Augustine himself makes it clear that it was his encounter with the books of the Platonists that made it possible for him to view both the Church and its scriptural tradition as having an intellectually satisfying and, indeed, resourceful content.”

“As decisive as this encounter was, however, it would be a mistake simply to view Augustine’s writings as the uncritical application of a Neoplatonic framework to a static body of Christian doctrine…”
Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/

The two descriptions of mystical experiences in the Confessions are reminiscent of the works of Plotinus, the 3rd century founder of Neoplatonism, whose ideas Augustine knew indirectly. To say this differently, an learned reader of St. Augustine’s day may have seen in his descriptions an implicit allusion to what Neoplatonists had described.

ficino