Virtually all of the philosophy underlying Western thought, science and culture has its origins

somewhere in the legacy of two great Greek philosophers who lived and taught in Athens in the 3rd

century BCE: Plato and his disciple Aristotle. Through their examination of most of the fundamental

questions of human experience, Plato and Aristotle laid a foundation from which others would further

pursue them across the ages, giving birth to philosophy and its descendents, which include both the

natural and social sciences as well as theology, ethics, law and politics, among other disciplines.

Though both of these philosophers are vastly influential and their work transcendent in many ways, I

believe that if I were a student of philosophy in ancient Greece I would choose to study with Aristotle

around the time that he lived in Assos, in which he composed most of his biological works (Preus 2007:

55). In order to explain why I have picked Aristotle in Assos, it is important that we understand what

the factors going into the decision are. So I will review, then, what the basics elements of the

philosophy of both Plato and Aristotle are, and then proceed to detail why I have chosen the latter.

Plato

Plato was born in 424 or 427 BCE (Preus 2007: 206), the son of Athenian aristocrats, which

afforded him a remarkable education and the ability to enter the higher spheres of Athenian society and

politics (Melling 1987: 2). He was most famous for his Dialogues, philosophical treatises in which

Plato examines philosophical issues through discussions held by his characters, which were supposed

to represent each a different inclination toward an answer, with the assumption that in the end the

learner would either have a better understanding of the subject (Preus 2007: 207) or reach the most

suitable answer by confronting propositions one against another in a sort of dialogue, a method known

as “dialectics” (Preus 2007: 208).

Although Plato's writings, like Aristotle's, span a vast range of topics and there is no final

agreement on whether his thought should be seen as a cohesive body of thought or as changing over

time, several themes emerge more or less consistently throughout his work (Preus 2007: 209). One of

the main focuses of his philosophy was the concept of “Forms,” roughly equivalent to “ideas” (Preus
2007: 209; Melling 1987: 96). According to Plato, the world as we know it is only an imperfect copy of

those things which are ultimately real: “Forms” or “ideas.” As told in the parable of the cave, man sees

only the “shadows” of the real things that exist, and man's knowledge of the world is only adequate

inasmuch as it arrives at these perfect ideas. This idea has been very important to people in different

places in history because it lays the groundwork for a distinction between matter and mind, between

body and soul, so to speak. Plato himself advanced the idea that the soul was immortal and existed

within a separate plane of reality in the Phaedo (Preus 2007: 208).

Another important concern of Plato's was reaching “knowledge about virtues and values”

(Preus 2007: 207). A good example of this is Eutyphro, in which Plato takes the reader to explore the

question “what is good?” or more specifically, “where does good come from?” In the dialogue,

Socrates interrogates Eutyphro on the idea of whether things are good because the gods want them, or

the gods want things because they are good. In his signature dialectic fashion, Plato confronts both

perspectives attempting to reach more and more refined definitions of piety (Melling 1987: 23), passing

through the implications of each, among which are whether the gods can will impious things and

whether there is good that is above the will of the gods .

Plato did most of his teaching at the Academy, a garden in which he taught many of Greece's

great philosophers, including Aristotle himself.

Aristotle

Aristotle was born in 384 BCE, in the coastal Greek village of Stagira to Nicomachus, a court

physician to the king of Macedon, and Phaestis, a midwife (Preus 2007: 54). Though he was sent by his

father to study in Athens in Plato's academy and became one of his most famous students, Aristotle

became a great philosopher on his own right, and in fact turned on many issues against the opinions of

his teacher (Preus 2007: 55). His work was also fast broader, and for a long time he was considered to

have addressed every possible topic in philosophy, from the wings of birds to the origin of truth

(Ackrill 1981: 3).

 The philosophy of Aristotle, rather than being based upon reaching the ideal “Forms” was far

more hands-on. Aristotle was interested in finding out from the confusion of the world the “principles”

of things, the causes that made them to be one way or the other, or simply made them “be.” The “soul,”

for example, wasn't the ideal essence of the body as it was for Plato, but instead the “moving” cause of

living things, what animates and distinguishes “subjects” from predicates (Preus 2007: 57).

Aristotle was interested in answering questions to produce “real understanding” (Ackrill 1981:

107) of things. Based on his philosophy of logic, which was based on the demonstration of propositions

by syllogism, Aristotle believed that science has to be able to demonstrate things that are demonstrably

true and essential of things in order to have true power to explain them (Ackrill 1981: 94). In all things,

Aristotle was more prone to look at the real world for examples to establish the truth and validity of his

arguments rather than allude to an a priori ideal standard.

Despite the fact that the Corpus Aristotelicum (the complete works of Aristotle) seems to be so

comprehensive and cohesive (Preus 2007: 55), the books in it were actually written over the course of

decades, and show how Aristotle continued to learn even as he ventured onto each next subject. In

particular, a large amount of his work is concerned with biology, with the way animals behave and their

bodies are constituted. His interest in biology even allowed him to realize that humans were not that

different from animals, and that in all nature there are causes, movers and purposes as there are in

society. To me this was very important because it put us on the path of understanding who we are and

where we come from through science, and also how to best govern ourselves.

Discussion

Despite the fact that they are often lumped together, Plato and Aristotle turn out to be very

different philosophers in both style and substance when compared with each other. Plato was idealistic

and while he was disinterested in understanding material things, Aristotle favored going out into the

world to find your answers. Plato believed in defining concepts narrowly and reaching truth through a

dialectics of ideas, Aristotle believed in creating syllogisms that can be tested against the real world,
putting forward a base for science.

One other crucial difference why I would rather study under Aristotle instead of Plato is the way

each of them saw life in society. Since Plato preferred ideal forms, he was also concerned with an ideal

form for society, and his Republic showed his vision for a society that, while being bent on order and

justice, was in fact elitist (Preus 2007: 210). Meanwhile, Aristotle believed that because the purpose of

man was to achieve the fulfillment of his virtues (and therefore happiness, or eudaimonia) the best

possible society would be one in which the capacities of people could be developed. This would inspire

the thoughts of many democratic and progressive thinkers.

Although I do prefer Aristotle over Plato, we cannot underestimate the value of his

contributions to philosophy and the validity that some of his points can hold. I think Plato has

influenced a lot of the Christian religion and ethics, and some of his most piercing questions are still

worthy of consideration. His method of explaining was also very valuable, because his Dialogues lend

a form of “personality” to the ideas he expresses that make them somewhat more intimate and relatable

than Aristotle's syllogisms.

To conclude, I would like to detail not only why I would like to study under Aristotle, but why

specifically in Assos. As mentioned before, Aristotle did most of his biological studies around the time

he lived in that village. Through those studies, Aristotle realized that man is both very much like and

also very different from animals. Humans have language, and that allows them to understand the world

in ways impossible to an animal, but also to be able to achieve capacities that many other animals do

not have. Most importantly, humans have the potential to understand their own purpose and to be in

control of their own happiness, and that is very powerful to me as a person. Being able to see how

Aristotle related with nature and reached thoughts such as these is one of the main reasons why I would

like to see myself as a student of his in that context.

 Works Cited

Ackrill, J.L. (1981). Aristotle the philosopher. New York, Ny: Oxford University Press.

Melling, DJ. (1987). Understanding plato. New York, Ny: Oxford University Press.

Preus, A. (2007). Historical dictionary of ancient greek philosophy. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.