Aristotle 's Theory Of Forms

The form of an object helps clear up its behavior. Aristotle calls the forms of living things “souls,” which are of three kinds: plants, animals, or human beings. Because Aristotle believed that the soul is merely a set of determined features, he didn’t regard the body and the soul as two separate individuals that mysteriously combine to from an organism.

Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.

Plato fails to set out his theory clearly and allow the reader to realise it is a theory. Nowhere in his dialogues does he state that he is describing a theory of forms, and so people may have misunderstood his writing s and he may not have meant it to be a theory at all. He has elements of his theory in many different dialogues and is inconsistent. In Book I of the Metaphysics Aristotle claims that Plato had a "system" to the effect that "the many sensibles which have the same name exist by participating in the corresponding Forms." This quote from Aristotle's work suggests that Plato did have a theory of forms but this is not believed by all people.

Aristotle was an ancient Greek scientist and philosopher who sought the answer to our existence and the truth of reality. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, a Greek philosopher who was famous for his theory of forms, but following his (Plato’s) death, he changed his views from Platonism to empiricism. Where Plato thought that true reality was based in what was abstract and intangible, Aristotle instead thought of

He was the first to study formal logic, founded called the Lyceum and tutored kings. He influenced Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions and beliefs. The Catholic Church took his view of a universal hierarchy and added the divine, the heavenly and the demonic to make their “Great Chain of Being.” Aristotle even had a basic idea of evolution based on God’s plan for the world (IEP). It is possible that he was the last person to know everything there was to know in his own time (Neill 488). His contributions to our understanding of the world are innumerable, despite that only about a third of his work survived. He contributed to philosophy as much as Plato, if not more. He took Plato’s theory of forms and changed it, making it his own, and in the process resolved the problems that he had noted, as well as those pointed out by Plato and others. He called his new theory he called Hylomorphism. Hylomorphism’s way of thinking stands directly opposite that which Plato’s forms encourage. Aristotle did not see the world as a reflection of another filled with forms but as the physical embodiment of the forms. The substances are created by the innate forms in the matter and are the only way we can perceive forms. This means that to Aristotle a substance did not have form only in an abstract world of forms but was contained by the object in and of

Unlike his teacher, Plato, Aristotle believed that the world could be explained by physical observation. This approach of using the five senses, cataloguing and categorising, is the foundation of scientific study. The approach is known as empiricism. Plato believed that we needed to look beyond the physical for an explanation of the universe in the guise of the World of Forms. Aristotle disagreed with this.

Aristotle did not believe in his teacher’s theory of the forms. His teacher Plato believed that non-physical forms represent reality. Aristotle instead believed a virtue is human character. A person must be brought up with these values. If a person watches their family have no values toward respect. The child will grow up without having any respect. He also believed every person have a purpose. This purpose is not a job or money, but instead each person has a natural purpose to be happy or to Eudaimonia. It is important to seek to do well and to have excellent traits and virtues.

In Metaphysics XII, Aristotle elaborates on a need for a “first mover that initiates motion without being moved” (Met. 12.7, 1072a26). This primary, or unmoved mover, he believes is the source of all motion in the universe. In this essay, I will explain his conception of such a mover. I will then elaborate on how this unmoved mover initiates motion. Finally, I will explain his rationale for believing there is such a mover.

“Everything which exist in this world and all things that we see around us are not as they appear to us” this is the core idea behind plato’s theory of forms.From this idea only he moves towards explaining his world of forms or ideas.

The world of sense is at a constant change, so how can the truth be

Plato was interested in how we can apply a single word or concept to many words or things. For example how can the word house be used for all the individual dwellings that are houses? Plato answered that various things can be called by the same name because they have something in common. He called this common factor the thing’s form or idea. Plato insisted that the forms differ greatly from the ordinary things that we see around us. Ordinary things change but their forms do not. A particular triangle may be altered in size or shape but the form of a triangle can never change. Plato concluded that forms exist neither in space or time. They can be known not only by the intellect but also by the senses. Because of their stability and perfection, the forms have greater reality than ordinary objects observed by the senses. Thus true knowledge is knowledge of the forms.

Since the early sixth century, the questions of reality, matter, and change have perplexed philosophers. These questions have since become a major topic of inquiry amongst philosophers eventually garnering the attention of notable figures such as Plato and his pupil Aristotle. Although both Plato and Aristotle shared many similar notions of order and an eternal universe, their methods of inquisition as well as their theories of reality and truth vary significantly. This difference would eventually lead them to develop vary different notions of real knowledge. Plato primarily focusing on theoretical and mathematical proofs while Aristotle on observational and deductive reasoning primarily in the field of biology. Due to these stark differences in both men’s philosophy, I will be contrasting both their beliefs, theories and methods, as it relates to knowledge, its acquisition and change. I will also be discussing my opinions as the importance of their individual philosophy as it relates to answering these questions.

The theory of the Four Causes refers to an influential Aristotelian principle whereby the causes of movement and/or change are categorized allowing us to have knowledge of our existence and everything around us. Aristotle wrote that "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its ‘why’, that is to say, its cause." He provided an account of the operation of various individual substances in the universe. Distinctions were made between things of two sorts: those that are contingent on something else’s movement and those that necessary in their own movement. Aristotle not only suggested a proper description of these but also attempted to answer particular questions such as ‘Why does this event happen?’ and ‘Why is this object as

Aristotle defined nature “as an internal origin of change or stability”1. Natural substances are things such as animals, plants and inanimate matter like earth, water, fire and air. Each natural substance according to Aristotle has its own nature, which is what gives rise to its natural behaviour/characteristic. The nature of a natural substance is its inner principle/source of change.2

Act and potency and their distinction are an important and fundamental theory in philosophy. It helps approach questions in metaphysics concerning substance, essence, and causation. In this essay, I will be using this theory of act and potency to show how the four causes and the theory relate to each other. Thus, the four causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause are related to each other and can be explained through the theory and concepts of act and potency.