Philosophy: “Explain the Differences Between Plato and Aristotle’s View of Reality”.

Plato imagined that there existed an ideal or perfect founding beyond our own physical earth. Our earthly population is full of unevenness, imperfections, and impurities which have been copied from the certain ideal world which is beyond us. Plato further believed that our physical world and its Forms inscribe or imitate the literal Forms in a disorderly way. He claimed that there was a relationship between the factualm of Forms and our world. This relationship revealed to us mortals the stocks and brought order to life. Aristotle objected to Platos view, arguing that one can non know the type of interaction which is occurring between the cardinal Forms.If the real or ideal forms atomic number 18 eternal, fine and unchanging then how do they relate to the material objections or Forms on earth with tout ensemble their physical imperfections? This participation or imitation connective between the real and the imaginary (which Plato claimed existed) is erroneous thinking as no one can/has established such a link real or otherwise. And even if a link is established it fails to explain all the Forms in the material world. At nearly point Plato fails to explain how this greater Form was controlled- how can Form control things?Was there energy in Forms? Aristotles assumption of the Theory of Forms was intimately integrated with his belief that we lift some type of biological and scientific wisdom of a particular substance (be it plant, animal, rock, etc) only when we know what argon usually called its causes. The Greek word, aitia, which is translated as causes, is probably better rendered as that which explains. What that means is that our intimacy of something only occurs in one case we have ascertained why the thing is there and what its uses are (the natural scientific method).Thus, if the effect of being a humanoid includes being a biped, we are able to explain our two legs by appeal to the form of world which is in us. So knowledge of the form or essence is in effect knowledge of the things causes, of what explains why it is what it is. In this way Aristotles theory of knowledge was integrated with his metaphysics or scientific method. Thus, if the essence of being a humanoid includes being a biped, we are able to explain our two legs by appeal to the form of humanness which is in us. So knowledge of the form or essence is in effect knowledge of the things causes, of what explains why it is what it is.In this way Aristotles theory of knowledge was integrated with his metaphysics or scientific method. Plato postulated that once the globe rose above their physical environment, they would sympathize the Forms which were present in the camouflaged world. Whether he meant this would occur after death or during life cadaver a mystery. Aristotle on the other hand believed that everything was right here on earth and one could find the Form if one developed a scientific method to apprehend it . I believe the Forms which P lato believed in were non real.He claims that what we see on earth are mimics of the real thing, only with a lot of imperfections. In his Allegory of the Cave, outlined in The Republic, he called mimics artificial replicas of the real thing. In real life all that is seen is an illusion (smoke) of the real thing. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that our natural world itself was real and physical. Aristotle, having studied some biological and physical phenomenon during his work as a teacher, came to understand that our world was made up of many natural Forms, even though not all of the Forms were ideal, pure or perfect.He argued that with our sense(s) we could identify all the natural Forms on earth. The big question which Aristotle and everyone else asked about Platos theory of Forms was what are the two separate realms and what do they mean and how do they explain life as it is? No matter how one analyses Platos theory, I would argue it hardly fails to explain our physical world, its evolution and the order of things. Why some things are permanent remains a central question in his philosophy. How was the knowledge about our own world derived from the ideal Forms?One can understand that genetic traits can be passed on to future generations of humans and animals, moreover how does this information pass on to inanimate objects like the stone, rock, sand or water? How could these physical properties with no Brain understand the ideal world? I can understand that perhaps some humans whitethorn have ESP and perceive (with a lot of good luck) the then(prenominal) or the future, but how can a rock know that it was a rock in the ideal world first and now is a manifestation of the rock in our world?