The arguments fronted by both Plato and Aristotle were both premised on one same thing of form and matter. It is vital to understand that Plato was the first to advance the theory of form. Later on, Aristotle gave his metaphysics, which was a critique of the work of Plato. Comparison of the two works shows that there are concepts of which Aristotle agreed with Plato, but gainsaid others. Basing on the details of the two explanations, it is argued in this paper that Plato’s theory of forms is better than Aristotle’s metaphysics.
It is important to note that form and matter are descriptions of the basic duality in all existence. Form refers to the essence of something, also christened as the ‘whatness’ of a thing. 1 On the other hand, matter refers to the content of a thing. Many philosophers widely hold the view that there is a significant level of duality exists in these two concepts. However, it is vital also to observe that the definitions of form and matter have differed greatly in the history of philosophy. 2 Therefore, the specific definition of form and matter depends on the philosophical school of thought to which one belongs or supports. Descriptions of these two terms are based on the arguments of Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s explanation is more clear, convincing and credible than Aristotle’s objection in his Metaphysics book.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Essentially, Plato describes form as the essence of something. Aristotle also agrees with this description but deviates from Plato’s theory of form by distinguishing between form and matter. According to Aristotle, form means the essential determination or simply the organic structure of something. Aristotle then describes matter as what something is made up of or its content.
Logically arguing, Aristotle’s reasoning in making this distinction is not plausible. In fact, a great deal of modern philosophical arguments has resoundingly rejected the Aristotelian concept as presented in his Metaphysics, in support of Plato’s theory of form. For instance, the Empiricism philosophical school of thought does not see the need and sense for the distinction between form and matter as fronted by Aristotle.
There is much sense in Plato’s argument that form, translated to imply idea, is the permanent reality that often makes something to be whatever it is in nature. Therefore, the form is quite different from its specificities, which are normally finite hence subject to change. It is correct to argue that there was no need for Aristotle to make the distinction between form and matter because it had already been addressed by Plato in his theory of form, albeit implicitly. Specifically, Plato explains that any particular material thing like a real dog may change. 3 A dg may die and cease to be the living animal it was before dying. In this case, it becomes mere dead matter. However, one thing about it does not change at all regardless of when it is alive or dead. This permanent thing is the idea of a dog. The idea of a dog is eternal hence enjoys a higher status. Form is, thus, unchanging.
Contrastingly, Aristotle argues in his Metaphysics that form and matter are co-principles of which all things are composed. Therefore, he opposed Plato’s idea of implicit matter in form. According to Aristotle, form is the determinate structure that makes up the characteristics or attributes of things whereas matter is the content from which things are made. This argument is what constitutes Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism. 4 However, it is vital to note that even in Aristotle’s metaphysics, form enjoys precedence to matter. Therefore, to some point, even Aristotle agreed with the immortal stature given to form by Plato.
Considering the argument of Aristotle, it is understandable that also matter or the particular content of things is eternal hence cannot change. Such an argument is not realistic. It is practical that often the content of things can even be changed by human beings. Just like Plato explained, the particular material of things may always not be perfect. In fact, in the analogy of drawing a triangle made by Plato, kit is true that one may not come up with a perfect figure of a triangle. This means that matter is not permanent. The drawings of different people aiming to come up with a triangle cannot be the same. There must be a great difference in these drawings because of the variations in the materials used. However, the form of the individual triangles is just the same. It implies that the idea of a triangle does not change regardless of the material used in drawing or making it. It, therefore, stands out that Plato’s form is better than Aristotle’s metaphysics .
There are different reasons for holding the view that Plato’s form is better than Aristotle’s metaphysics . Firstly, the theory of form as advanced by Plato is highly in tandem with the practical observations in real life. In real life, it is true that the form or idea of things does not change, but remains eternal. Based on this form a thing, people do identify it. For instance, when a person dies he or she ceases to exist, and he or she no longer holds the particulars he had regarding features. However, people can identify the person in death because of his eternal form that never changes.
Bibliography
Fine, Gail. On ideas: Aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory of forms . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Furth, Montgomery. Substance, form, and psyche: An Aristotelean metaphysics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. The big questions: A short introduction to philosophy . Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013.
1 Solomon Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins, The big questions: A short introduction to philosophy . (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013), p.121.
2 Ibid., 123.
3 Fine Gail, On ideas: Aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory of forms , (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p.35.
4 Furth Montgomery, Substance, form, and psyche: An Aristotelean metaphysics , (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p.13.
