Plato And Aristotle 's View On Knowledge Essay

Plato’s Theaetetus aims to answer the question, “what is knowledge?”. Throughout the book, we get some potential answers, but none of these answers passed Socrates’ investigation. Could this be a message from Plato stating that knowledge cannot be defined? Or did Plato leave all the information necessary to answer the question, but left the work of figuring what knowledge is to the reader? I think that the latter is true. In this paper I argue that an account must be an explanation which shows a deep level of understanding of understanding of the object or subject relative to the true opinion stated.

Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato’s definition of virtue. What does this definition really mean though? Plato and Aristotle both had their own unique arguments devoted to the topic at hand, and their own ways of describing what virtue really is. Defining virtue may seem to be an easy taste, but to truly understand the arguments behind the definition can prove to be very challenging.

Our sensory also give us knowledge of the material world, what we can see or smell. And sensory objects he believed that they were in constant change and were a phenomenon to the physical world. Plato used the concept of the divided line to illustrate the relationship of knowledge to opinion. Metaphysics is investigating principles or reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and Ontology were the traditional branches concerned with the explaining of the ultimate nature of being in the world. Epistemology was also used it is the attempt to answer the basic question of true and untrue knowledge. The study of nature of being, existence or reality in general and its basic categories. A Plato’s Divided Line. A+B= world of forms (Being). C+D= (Becoming) Segments A, B, C, D represent decreasing degrees of truth. Ea. Degree of truth corresponds to different kind of thinking and different level of reality. (A) Level of pure intelligence or understanding the soul directly apprehends truth at highest level. (B) Level of reasoning specifically, mathematical thinking and deductive reasoning. (C) Level of belief or common opinions about physical objects, morals, politics, and practical affairs. (D) Level of illusion, dominated by second hand opinions and uncritical impressions. Plato states that The Form Human does not change-grow-or decay.

In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but Aristotle detailed virtue ethics and the path to happiness. Plato’s political theories for a utopian society varied from Aristotle’s view of ‘best state for each society’. Their metaphysical theories are complete opposites and very contradicting. Even though Plato and Aristotle came from the same era and were closely linked they had very different philosophies.

Plato’s theory of the Forms showcases that acquiring knowledge involves turning away from the world of senses and moving towards the Forms/world of intellect. Within Plato’s Republic there are three analogies: the sun, line, and cave, which are intended to clarify how things experienced in the sensible world are less real than the Forms. All three analogies are consistent through their descriptions of the differences between the intelligible and sensible worlds. The usage of all three also enables Plato to guide readers through the knowledge process, starting with a simple description of the sun and ending with a full example of how man can reach that sun.

An extension of the Sun simile where Plato attempts to explain ‘goodness’ and the nature of reality and knowledge, the ‘Divided Line’ extrapolates on the relationship between the two realities and their corresponding knowledge. The line is divided into two unequal parts – the smaller part would be the ‘Visible Realm’ while the larger part would be the ‘Intelligible realm’. The two parts are then divided into two unequal parts again of the same ratio – the smaller part of the ‘Visible realm’ is labelled ‘Shadows and Images’ while

Knowledge is a lofty subject; it is hard to become aware of how thoughts spontaneously run through microscopic structures inside human heads. Throughout Socrates and Meno’s conversation, they seemed to struggle in defining how people acquire knowledge. What was troubling for me in the reading was the amount of contradiction between the various points of view expressed. Most of the contradiction came through the conversation about virtue. I helped myself better understand the word virtuous by putting it into The Hammer in place of truth. Virtue may also be based on our worldview, culture, experiences, and perception. Although Meno and Socrates were searching for a

Plato’s ‘Divided Line’ is a model indicating not only levels of knowledge, but basically levels of

The discussion of true belief and knowledge in the Meno develops in the analogy of the traveling men; one who knows the correct path to Larissa and the other who has a true belief of the correct path to Larissa (Meno 97a-c). Socrates tells Meno that if both men led to the same result, then true belief is no more useful than knowledge and both beneficial (Meno 97c). This comparison changes in book five of the Republic when Socrates says an ideal state must have a philosopher-king as a ruler (Republic 473d-e).

Plato argued that true knowledge was not obtained through the knowledge of the physical world around us, but from these unchanging ideas. Plato’s theory of knowledge is well explained through his discussion of the Divided Line; a line divided into two unequal parts. One section represents the visible order and the other intelligible order, relating to opinion and knowledge, respectively. The stages of cognition flow upwards: imagining, belief, thinking, and intelligence. The visible, changing world of opinion begins with the awareness of images through perception. Awareness of images can include

Plato contended that all true knowledge is recollection. He stated that we all have innate knowledge that tells us about the things we experience in our world. This knowledge, Plato believed, was gained when the soul resided in the invisible realm, the realm of The Forms and The Good.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

Every day, people go about their lives and live each day as it comes. Some may get out of bed and grab a cup of coffee or tea, maybe have a bite to eat and start their day. Because these things are like routine, most ordinary people aren’t going to stop and think while taking a sip of coffee and wonder what makes up the coffee or tea they are drinking and what are forms. This is where Plato and Aristotle stand out above the crowd in their ways of thinking because unlike the guy who just goes on with his day drinking his coffee or tea without a thought, these two guys want to know where things originate and what forms are. Form comes from the Greek word eidos which translates as idea, archetype or essence. Although Plato and Aristotle both have ideas about form, they differ completely from each other. To find out which view is more plausible, they should be compared.

Philosophers conventionally defined knowledge as a belief that is both true and justified. Plato first introduces this concept of knowledge in Thaeaetetus where he presents knowledge, to be justified true belief. This definition sufficed until, Edmund Gettier, an American philosopher, pointed out that the conditions could be fulfilled inadvertently, in ways that did not amount to what Plato intuitively regarded to as knowledge. The goal of the Gettier problem is to showcase that one can have a belief which is true and justified, yet still not amounting to knowledge. By analyzing the concepts of Plato’s theory, I will bring to light its inadequacies, proving the complication Gettier poses to be a genuine philosophical problem.

In Metaphysics 1.1 , Aristotle claims “All men by nature desire to know” (980a) and that this knowledge is freedom. Shortly after claiming man’s want to have knowledge, he begins to distinguish between man and animal; all animals have the knowledge of sense - feeling the cold of a snowflake, or the seeing the sun go down - this all beings have. Aristotle then goes on to describe additional types of knowledge that become more exclusive to the human experience as they go further. Memory knowledge, that only some animals have; the knowledge of experience even less animals have - although some might argue that animals don’t have this knowledge and in fact, this is where the types of knowledge become a privilege that only humans can possess - and finally, the knowledge of art and science, which is agreed that only humans have. It is this type of knowledge that Aristotle says is only allowed once we have the freedom from our most basic needs of survival. Knowledge of the arts and science is the highest level, “for it was when almost all the necessities of life and the things that make for comfort and recreation had been secured, that such knowledge began to be sought” (982b.22-24.) This freedom, the freedom of learning the most honorable of the levels of knowledge, is highly valued by Aristotle and according to Simonides, only “God alone can have this privilege” (982b.30). Knowledge of the arts and sciences if rather the knowledge of the what AND the why - take for example the