November 19, 2003

Any discussion of philosophy or a philosopher inevitably refers to another philosophy or philosopher.  This is done to show comparison, or draw contrast between the two.  Philosophy, it seems, is extremely difficult to describe on its own merit without some point of reference.  So the reference to others in the field gives some place to start.  Unfortunately, it presumes a familiarity with the referenced philosopher.

In on of my previous articles, I discussed Plato.  I struggled at times to make my points (or rather, Plato’s points) clear.  Now, as we discuss Aristotle, perhaps both Plato’s and Aristotle’s points will become clearer as the contrasts between them is explored. 

It is fitting, and very common, to compare and contrast Plato and Aristotle.  While Aristotle was a student of Plato, Aristotle did develop many contrasting views from his mentor.

Let’s begin with a discussion of Form and Substance.  In colloquial English, these two words could be interchangeable in their definition.  However, these are both philosophical buzz words and you should consider their philosophical connotations whenever you see them in this or any other philosophical writing.  Plato believed that there was a real something that existed as a universal form of an object.  In other words, the dog didn’t necessarily exist, but was merely a representation of dogdom – the idea or concept of what it is to be a dog.  Apply this to anything, apples, clouds, chairs, it doesn’t matter.  Plato asserted that things only existed in the universal concept – that the object that you perceived with your senses was only a tiny and insignificant representation of what it truly was.

This is perhaps the most significant area in which Aristotle differs from Plato.  Aristotle postulated that things existed in themselves rather than in some universal concept.  While this seems like an insignificant argument to make let me try to illustrate.  Substance, according to Aristotle, was the seat of existence as opposed to form.  Substance is that which is perceived by the senses.  Form is that which is conjured or understood in the mind.

Now consider the difference.  Plato said that things exist in form – Aristotle said that things exist in substance.  Are you getting the difference?

The difference has to do with perception: at what level of the cognitive process does something exist.  Plato said only at the highest level of cognition and Aristotle said at the lowest level of cognition.  To understand this further, you must understand that philosophers where trying to decide what existed?  And moreover, what was existence?

Plato’s idea was that things only existed in the mind.  The computer screen that you are looking at does not exist as an electronic appliance on your desktop, but rather exists as an idea of computer screens in your mind.  Now, don’t misunderstand Plato.  He never meant to suggest that things did not exist.  In other words, the Plato’s monitor that exists in your mind is no less real than Aristotle’s idea of a substantive monitor that you can see and touch.  The question is one of where it exists.

Think about the Buddhist idea of existence in which all things are merely the dream (as it were) of the Brahma.  If I am merely part of the dream of Brahma, then do I even exist?  Plato compared the perceivable existence to that of a dream.  In a dream, what is real – what exists?  When you wake you realize that nothing existed – or did it?  In your sleep, in the midst of the dream, you acted and reacted to events as if they were the ultimate reality.  Plato sees the waking reality in the same sense that perhaps there is still yet a higher reality.  Thus, he defines existence in the idea of the universal concept rather than the substantive.

Aristotle’s approach was that things exist in themselves – that this is the ultimate reality.  People rarely have trouble with Aristotle’s view because our contemporary view of reality is so similar.   The things we see, feel, hear, smell, or taste are real – they exist.

But Aristotle wasn’t a total rebel against his mentor.  He, like Plato, questioned the idea of the Greek pantheon and endeavored to provide a more reasonable explanation for existence other than the silly mythology of the Greek pantheon.