Ryan T.

Bautista Philosophy 2033 8 October 2008 Platonic & Aristotelian Theory of Knowledge

The Theory of Forms, one that has transformed the way people understand the world around them, has itself undergone a radical transformation. Soon after Plato had introduced his idea of the Forms, his most renowned successor Aristotle came from behind with a theory of his own an improved fine-tuned modification of Platos theory. While both philosophers believe in these perfectly constructed objects of knowledge known as forms, it is Aristotles advancement of the Theory of Forms that merits the greater commendation. To grasp the initial framework of the Forms, we must first look to Plato. The instigator of such a concept, Plato thought of the forms as the intelligibles, or things that were by their nature very abstract. He thought of the forms as objects of pure knowledge, accessible only through and by the mind. Material objects in turn would imitate these forms and be only understandable through knowledge of the forms. This idea seems to fall short however by virtue of the fact that in order for Forms to be pure and unmixed they would necessarily be incompatible with other objects. Therefore Plato seems to attribute a misrepresentation between material things and his ideal Forms. Aristotle, conversely, although he did indeed subscribe to the idea of Forms, saw them in a very different light. He puts it with eloquence, the arguments for Forms undermine the existence of things that matter more to us than the existence of Ideas (293). Quite simply, the Forms (at least how Plato views them) undercut the importance of our daily life. A radical transformation of the Theory of Forms takes place as Aristotle

posits his own theory of knowledge. He thinks Plato to have fallen short in explaining the importance of this world and explaining how one could possess knowledge in this world. Plato simply created too great a schism between the Forms and the material world. Furthermore Aristotle disagrees that intelligence lies outside of our immediate reality; he thinks that change and time and motion are the marks of intelligibility, all of which can be found right in front of us, as they are carefully intertwined into the fabric of our world. And so in summation we find that Aristotle has allowed for the theory of forms to be transformed in the following ways: Thus it is apparent that the Aristotelian understanding of the Forms is far more probable and consequently far more compelling. First, Aristotle accepted the fact that the world was constantly changing, but (unlike Plato) he also incorporated into his theory a way in which the world could be permanent. Even though the shape or position of something could change, the essential form would still remain the same. By showing how there could exist permanent objects in a world that is always changing, Aristotle took his theory of knowledge a step beyond that of Plato. He was able to create a duality of change and permanence in the world, something Plato had failed to incorporate into his theory. It is this idea of change and permanence, form and matter, that So even in the light of Platos most radical theory, his Theory of Forms, we are forced to pay greater tribute to Aristotles transformative revision, one that grants us a more satisfying understanding of the Forms. Plato sees reality, the world around us, every tree or house or bird or flower, as nothing more than belief. It is Aristotle who is able to make sense of all the things surrounding us to give meaning and purpose to the reality we inhabit. He gives a shape, a structure, a true and more exact form to the things

that we face every day of our lives. Were it not for Aristotle, perhaps we would at this very moment be reaching to the sky for things beyond our reach, things unknowable, things that possibly do not even exist.