The paper "The Ancient Commentator of Plato and Aristotle by Miira Tuominen" is a perfect example of a philosophy article. As we know it, Aristotle was a Greek Philosopher and an of Plato also a Greek Philosopher. Hitherto, the philosophies of both philosophers differ on many issues. One of the most significant things to analyze is their different perceptions of moral theory. For this case, one can identify many points of disagreement between the moral theories of Aristotle and Plato. This paper, therefore, seeks to compare and contrast Aristotle.
It will illustrate that both morals and politics go hand in hand for both philosophers. The dogmas they apply to their morals are entrenched in their political states. Aristotle held a strong belief that morals and politics go hand in hand and that the definitive objective of life is contentment, which both have abilities. According to Aristotle (2009), happy life is dictated by reason. Next, as mortal beings, we have the ability to reason, unlike plants and animals. Further, Aristotle separated the soul into three sections just like Plato, with the reason being the premier part.
In reality, Aristotle like Plato held the view in the form of good in his Nicomachean Ethics. With his views cemented in this belief that a form of good exists alongside judgment, Aristotle then concluded that morality is both theoretical and practical. However, Aristotle disagreed with his teacher Plato, since he believed that human beings are not as precisely virtuous; instead, there exists a dispute between our natural human disposition and our reason. According to Aristotle (2009) to be virtuous human beings must learn to dictate their feelings.
Additionally, Plato’ s perception of science was essentially different from that of Aristotle’ s, since he held the view that to accomplish an understanding of ultimate reality was to establish the universal that involved in the objects that we experience in our physical reality. In all, the explanation of the contrast in Platonic and Aristotelian reason has offered the impetus for this analysis. Though these two great philosophers differed on the hypothetical basis of their realism, the significance off their postulation cannot just be overlooked, because their personal academic quests have offered an instrumental hypothetical understanding of their corresponding scientific approaches.