The 5 differences between Plato and Aristotle (explained)

To speak of philosophy implies to speak, necessarily, of Plato and Aristotle. The merit of these two thinkers lies in their ability to create a fertile ground on which, later, all Western culture would be cultivated.

The influence of both authors has been such that many consider the contributions that other authors have made to philosophy mere derivations of theirs. In this sense, Plato is traditionally conceived as the father of the idealistic and rationalist traditions, while Aristotle is considered the father of empiricism..

Between the two philosophers there are many points of union, but also differences. Essentially, Plato argues that the only true world is what he calls the world of ideas. According to his vision, there is a clear division between what we perceive through our senses and what we can discover through reasoning about entities that he calls forms or ideas. On the contrary, Aristotle considers that the authentic world is the sensible one, linked to experience. He understands that to know the essence of things it is not necessary to go to the ideas of which Plato spoke, but to inquire and experiment on the things themselves.

If you are interested in acquiring some basic notions of philosophy, this article is for you. We are going to review the main differences between the two thinkers, in order to establish a clear comparison that allows us to correctly differentiate their respective worldviews and knowledge.

• We recommend you read: "The 9 branches of Philosophy (characteristics and authors)"

How is Philosophy different from Plato and Aristotle?

We are going to examine the main areas of discrepancy between the works of both authors.

1. Ontology: Dualism versus the single reality

Ontology is the part of metaphysics in charge of studying being in a general way. According to Plato's vision, reality is divided into two different worlds. On the one hand, the intelligible world, the only one that he considers true because it is made up of so-called ideas. On the other hand, the sensible world, which he understands, is a copy of the first.

The sensible world has a physical and changing character, is based on particularities and is accessible through our senses. On the other hand, the intelligible world is immutable, since it is the world of universality that contains the real essence of things. Plato assumes that the essence of things is not found in things themselves but in this world of ideas.

This halved view of reality is known in philosophy as ontological dualism. Due to its abstract nature, Plato devised a metaphor known as the Myth of the Cave to exemplify this theory. For Plato, human beings live trapped in a cave where we can only glimpse the shadows and projections of things, but not the things themselves.

Knowledge is what allows individuals to get out of that cave to see reality in itself, which is what he calls the intelligible world. However, he considered that this process could become complex, since sometimes reality can overwhelm us and blind us after a long time in the “cave”.

Aristotle is head-on against the Platonic dualistic view. He considers that there is no intelligible world, since the sensible is the only and true one. For him, the authentic reality is found in the same things and not separated from them.

• We recommend you read: "Myth of Plato's cave: explanation of this allegory"

2. Physics: Ideas vs. Substance

Plato assumes that the sensible world does not represent the true reality, as it is only a copy of it. Being a changing and concrete world, the philosopher considers that it cannot be the focus of our thought. For him, true knowledge is achieved when the ideas that the sensible world "copies" are discovered.

Unlike his teacher, Aristotle recognizes in the sensible world the only and authentic reality. For him, nature, with its movement and its changes, is what must be placed as the center of thought. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not associate change with imperfection, since he understands that movement is part of the nature of the substance that conforms to reality.

3. Epistemology: innate ideas versus tabula rasa

As we have already commented, Plato despises the sensible world for its imperfection. The world of ideas is the only one that can be a source of knowledge because it is universal. For him science can only focus on ideas, not on concrete things. Knowing for Plato is a necessarily scientific process and in no way accepts that we can know something by observing a concrete and changing reality.

In addition, Plato argues that there are innate ideas. The human soul is the greatest source of knowledge, since it knows ideas because it comes from the intelligible world. The soul for Plato has already existed in this world before going down to the sensible world, so once in the changing and imperfect world he only has to remember what he knows. In other words, knowing for the philosopher is synonymous with remembering. This theory is known in philosophy as the Theory of Reminiscence.

Following this same logic, for Plato knowledge is a process of ascension, known as the dialectical method. Thus, the human being starts from ignorance of him to get to know the ideas. Plato's disciple, as we know, manifests a radically opposite opinion to that of the master by granting the sensible world the state of unique and true reality. For Aristotle, it is the senses and not reason that allow us to acquire knowledge. Unlike Plato, Aristotle understands that there are no innate ideas.

This is so because he conceives our mind as a blank page (what he called tabula rasa), where knowledge is drawn as we learn. As we see, Aristotle with this idea inaugurated the empirical perspective of knowledge. In front of Plato, who considered that the method to know was dialectical, Aristotle understands that induction and deduction are the only ones to achieve knowledge.

• We recommend you read: "The 75 best famous phrases of Aristotle"

4. Ethics: A Unique Good... Or several?

Plato understands that virtue in the human being is achieved by knowing the Good, which for him is only one, objective. According to Plato, every human who knows the Good will act according to it. That is, the philosopher understands that those individuals who do wrong do so out of ignorance and ignorance of what Good is.

For this thinker the soul of the human being consists of three parts: rational, irascible and concupiscible. Each of these parts corresponds to a different virtue, being wisdom, courage and temperance, respectively. In turn, each of these parties would be linked to a certain status in the polis in the following order: rulers (wisdom), warriors (courage), and peasants or merchants (temperance). For Plato justice is achieved when there is a balance between these three parts of the human soul.

For Aristotle, the purpose of human life is none other than happiness. Furthermore, unlike Plato, he understands that there is no single good, but many different ones. The key to achieving virtue is, for him, habit.

5. Anthropology

In Plato's case, the dualism that we discussed at the ontological level will also apply to the anthropological aspect. That is, it also divides the human being in two. For him, the body and the soul are two separate entities. The first belongs to the sensible world, while the second belongs to the intelligible.

Plato gives the soul an immortal character, so that it can exist separately from the body. When dying, the philosopher maintains that the soul returns to the world from which it comes, that is, the world of ideas. The ultimate goal of the soul is knowledge, since only in this way can it ascend there.

In the case of Aristotle, the human being is conceived as a substance, so it is composed of matter and form. The form would be the soul, while the matter would be represented by the body. This thinker is not satisfied with the dualistic perspective defended by his teacher, since he understands that soul and body are indivisible.

• We recommend you read: "The 80 best phrases of Plato"

Conclusions

In this article we have reviewed the key differences between two philosophers that have marked the course of Western thought: Plato and Aristotle. These thinkers produced dense works, collecting in them a whole way of understanding reality, ethics, knowledge, anthropology and the functioning of societies.

Philosophy can be arid and complex to understand on many occasions. Its abstract concepts can make it difficult to understand the proposals of different thinkers, so that in this field it is essential to disseminate and transmit this matter from a perspective didactic.

Today philosophy has somewhat lost the popularity it enjoyed in ancient times. Nevertheless, we cannot forget that this is recognized as the mother of all sciences. It is an area in which deep questions are investigated with difficult answers, but there are many contributions it has made to society. The modern scientific advances of today would be nothing if not because in an academy of Ancient Greece a few thinkers began to ask questions out of the mere desire to know, learn, and unravel what are.