Plato & Aristotle on Knowledge
Explain Plato’s theory of Forms and his metaphysical distinction between intelligible knowledge and sensible belief (opinion). What is the role of recollection?
The theory of forms, which is also referred to as the theory of ideas, is a theory in the philosophical aspect which claims that the world in a physical context is not entirely as accurate as unchangeable and timeless ideas. According to this theory, only forms that act as study objects can generate knowledge. Plato thus claimed that forms are the nonmaterial nature of all things, therefore, suggesting that other things such as matter and even objects are simply simulations. An important fact to note is that Plato’s initial proof for the existence of forms is purely intuitive and is based on two factors. The first factor is human perception. Under this factor, Plato claimed that before human beings existed in their bodily forms, their souls existed in heaven. It is at this place that the souls familiarized with forms. This, therefore, meant that real knowledge came from the comprehension of forms. An excellent example, in this case, is that what we appear to be learning is not learning but merely recalling things. Perfection is the second factor. In this factor, Plato claimed that it makes use of the design of the tool-makers to provide proof of the realness of forms.
Plato distinguished between knowledge and opinion through various means. One of the ways is that there exists both true and untrue belief, but this is not the case in knowledge as it is always actual. Another means is that intelligible knowledge takes forms as its primary objects. Because forms cannot be changed as they are immortal, what is considered to be true today cannot, at any point, be false in the future, as it is genuine and eternal. On the other hand, opinions take physical objects as their primary objects, which are discerned by people’s senses and thus are subject to be true at one point and false at the next point. Rational belief or Opinions are therefore flawed while knowledge is quite precise. Recollection plays the role of arguing for the existence of forms, in that forms are merely recollection objects.
Contrast this to Aristotle’s theory of Substance (form & matter) and his account of accidental change.
According to Aristotle’s theory, forms are not the core of existence, as stated in the theory of form by Plato but rather substances. Aristotle claimed that Substance, which consists of form and matter is what makes up the universe. This, therefore, meant that the universe is wholly made of substances. To provide an in-depth insight into the theory at hand, Aristotle claimed that the world is divided into two parts, which are the substances and accidents. This being the case, substances were the most basic of the two. An excellent example of the above factors includes a substance – something like a cat or a planet while an accident is something like being black or white or the process of sitting down. Breaking this down even further, substances can be classified as things around us and people in society. In contrast, accidents can be classified as an aspect of Substance, which is all according to Aristotle.
The substance theory applies common sense in the comprehension of the world and how it came to be as compared to form theory, which basically relies on knowledge. This theory also enables individuals to consolidate scientific knowledge in understanding how the universe functions. Aristotle’s account of accidental change is that it involves modification of the Substance in some particular way. This, therefore, means that the Substance is like the subject while the alteration is the accidental change. An excellent example of this is “the man became an actor” In this example, the man is the Substance while the accidental change is becoming a musician.
What is Aristotle’s account of substantive change, the four causes, and how we acquire knowledge
Aristotle’s account of substantive difference is that it is that factor, aspect, or characteristic that makes a thing be what it is. In other words, it is the acknowledgment of what a specific thing is. The substantive change is thus generating and dismantling of Substance. In this instance, the matter is the primary subject, while the form is the configuration of the Substance. An excellent example of this is whereby bronze metal is sculpted to become a statue. The bronze was, therefore, the matter, while the sculpture made of bronze was the form.
The four causes according to Aristotle include; the material cause which involves comprehension of what a thing is made of, the formal cause which consists of the design or form by which matter acquires in becoming an established or determinate thing, the efficient cause which revolves around the unit or agent accountable for the case acquiring its particular design or form, and finally the final cause which involves the purpose or function of a thing being explained. An excellent example of the four causes is the instance of a bronze statue of Hercules. In this example, the material cause is the bronze that is used to make the statue; the formal cause is the embodiment of Hercules, the efficient cause is the carver who was responsible for sculpting the statue while the final cause is basically what the statue was for and in this case, it was to commemorate the legend, Hercules. Aristotle, through his theory of knowledge, claimed that individuals acquire knowledge through the judgment that what is discerned has a specific form. This meant that knowledge could not be obtained merely through the undertaking of perception.
How does Plato’s account concerning knowledge of Forms and their participation differ from Aristotle’s account of universals?
Plato’s account on knowledge of forms claimed that only forms that act as study objects could generate awareness. Plato thus claimed that forms are the nonmaterial nature of all things, therefore, suggesting that other things such as matter and even objects are simply simulations, while Aristotle’s account of universals claimed that the knowledge of universals is acquired from experience. Universals, in this instance, refer to something that an individual can say of multiple objects, which is true. An excellent example of this is Red cups, where Red has been used to indicate the type of cups present. They are thus, the types of characteristics that are perceived in the world. This account by Aristotle also differentiates from that of Plato in the sense that Aristotle claimed universals are nonmaterial and universal and exist specifically in things and no other place else.