Read part 2 here: https://jb-talks.com/plato-or-aristotle-the-great-debate-of-western-philosophy-2/
Part 1 – Plato
The date is 300BC, the setting is ancient Greece. For the perhaps the first time the human race has paused its’ pursuit of senseless violence and blind, incoherent faith. In this single, unassuming corner of the ancient world man is intent upon a discussion of ideas. This discussion will resonate across centuries and nations, and those involved will have begun a conversation which will continue to rage as long as philosophy is deliberated.
Amongst these great pioneers of early philosophy, the two figures of Plato and Aristotle stand out as being undeniably the most influential in the realm of fundamental philosophy. These fundamentals can be broken down into, essentially, the study of how we attain knowledge itself (epistemology), and the study of the very nature of the world we live in (metaphysics). Although both individuals of course developed massively influential theories of ethics and politics, it is at this fundamental level which we see the key dichotomy develop.
So, why the focus on these individuals? Surely, I am exaggerating the influence one person can have on an entire field of human knowledge? Well, perhaps. As we are talking about figures who existed thousands of years ago, we cannot exactly pull up detailed records of all the various thinkers who contributed to the conversation, and determine whose ideas were the most significant. Indeed, Plato’s work is primarily a documentation of the work of Socrates, so it is almost certainly unfair to consider the ideas presented in his writings as wholly his own. It is likely that the ideas of these revered thinkers are, at least somewhat, a product of the prevalent thought of the time. That said, as we see in more documented periods of history, it usually takes a single thinker of considerable mental magnitude to tie these ideas together into an integrated philosophy. Nevertheless, as we have access to only that which the ancient Greeks chose to commit to parchment – thinkers such as Socrates never wrote a word – it isn’t really possible to determine the ultimate root of certain ideas and theories. This, however, rather misses the point. The difference in the views of Aristotle and Plato encapsulate two ways of approaching knowledge, of observing the world and of reason itself.
Plato
For Plato, the answers to the deepest of life’s questions lie in revelation. For Plato, true knowledge exists in a manner external to the human experience, in a realm of forms only accessible through reason. He draws a distinction between an observational truth, something which relies on the facts of reality at any given time to be true – such as the thickness of one’s illustrious philosopher beard – and a deeper, eternal truth – such as the sum of the angles in a triangle. For a time when most of the world was still engaged in figuring out which enemy tribe was most offensive to the banana God, this was ground-breaking stuff. Indeed, this distinction which Plato introduced is still very much relevant to modern philosophy. We now term these ‘observational’ truths as synthetic, as they require an observation of reality, and the ‘eternal’ truths as analytic, as the truth of the statement can be determined through the definitions of the terms used.
There is considerable debate as to whether these analytical truths require an observation of reality at all to be validated. Consider, as a thought experiment, that you existed a void of nothingness, with no sensory perception, and no knowledge that you know to be true. Could you, having access to nothing but your own thoughts, say that the sum of the angles in a triangle add to 180 degrees? Plato thought that yes, this type of knowledge goes beyond the need for empirical observation. He took this idea and ran with it; there must be knowledge which exists, not here on earth, but in a realm of pure forms, of concepts. The triangle your maths teacher drew on the board in school, that was a mere imitation, a poor attempt at bringing the perfect concept of triangle down from the world of forms, and into this reality. Sounds absurd, right? I would hope so. But it is this dichotomy, set at the very foundation of knowledge, which is perhaps Plato’s greatest and most enduring legacy.
The influence of Plato
You have likely heard of Descartes, French philosopher in the 1600th century. At a time when the Greek philosophers were being studied with interest and ideas had made a long-overdue comeback in western culture. Descartes is largely accredited with introducing the “mind-body split”, a problem which has plagued philosophy ever since. Descartes drew a distinction between knowledge which comes from the senses, and knowledge which comes from rational deliberation alone. Sound familiar? This dichotomy reflects that which Plato introduced centuries prior and, while Descartes didn’t invent an ethereal ‘world of forms’ like Plato, he maintained that there existed two types of knowledge, and two methods for obtaining them.
This problem would go on to define the philosophical debate for the next few centuries and is still very much wrestled with today. After Descartes, a split emerged between empiricists, who claimed knowledge comes exclusively from sensory experience, and rationalists, who claim the senses can’t be trusted and the mind is the only source of true knowledge. It was, arguably, from here that philosophy became an increasingly perplexing and divergent discipline, with ideas emerging from the likes of Kant, Hegel and Berkeley who took aim at reality itself, creating impenetrably complex systems of logic to describe the world and our place in it.
Many will roll their eyes at these theories, often drawing a distinction between the “moral” or “theoretical” and the “practical”. They hold the view that such pontification should be reserved for dusty corners of academia, while real life requires something more tangible and pragmatic. However, these ideas have done a huge amount to shape the culture and politics of the western world, and continue to do so, whether you take them seriously or not. Just to take Kant as an example, his work formed the basis of many liberal ideas about peace, justice and international relations which underpin much of the so called ‘liberal world order’ we have seen rise to dominance in the twentieth century. It is both sobering and exhilarating to think that one man can have such an influence on history. And, while the modern liberalist has his roots in Kant, the ideas of Kant himself, and dozens of other prominent philosophers, have their roots in the writings of Plato all those centuries ago.
Although the dichotomy Plato introduced has resulted in two main divisions, being the empiricists and the rationalists, Plato himself comes down firmly on the rationalist side. This means that the reality we all experience is not a source of knowledge, indeed, for Plato, it is a distraction. Famously exemplified by a metaphor, Plato describes the world in terms of a cave. Concepts we see, feel and hear in this world are merely shadows flickering on the cave wall, while the true knowledge, true concepts exist outside the cave, and are only accessible through reason. We rely on philosophers like Plato (conveniently) to step outside the cave and interpret these shadows for us, and only then can we experience true knowledge. It is this rejection of the world in front of us, and focus on something above, something removed from reality, which has truly been Plato’s legacy. As we will see with Aristotle, the opposition to this viewpoint epitomises a divide in philosophy which goes far beyond these two men, while at the same time being perfectly embodied by them.