Plato and Aristotle

Its well known that Plato was a student of Socrates and that Aristotle was a student of Plato.

They were great philisophical minds of the Golden Age of ancient Greece.

Plato was a firm believer in the dualistic contentions of Form--spiritual/meta-physical over Matter--the physical. He believed that a anything material existed because it was perfect and unchanged in the spiritual world....heaven, spiritual world,etc.... In a brief and short breakdown of Plato's belief, he postulated that the "Truth" cannot be found in the physical world.

Aristotle, though a very learned pupil, believed the total opposite. His contention was that the "Truth" could and can be found in the physical and not in the spiritual.

I put this premise forth for any type of comment or discussion on this. Two great philosophical minds couldn't have been that far off....what do you think of this?

regards
seekerof

Socrates, though being a very learned pupil of Plato, believed the opposite.

plato studied in some of the mystery schools...
aristotle did not...

as a student of one who knew the truth it would seem that the essence would be passed on from the teacher...

his (ariatotle) view may have been skewed, and the truth was inherently taught to him through his teacher...

i do not personally believe that the truth can be attained in the focus of the 3rd dimensional physical realm...

yet as a 3d being i can know the truth about 2 dimensions and 1 dimension...

a natural univeral truth...

I would agree, for the most part bigsage.
I think this also goes to show how man's "perception" of many things can be rooted in physical and spiritual...or 'form and matter.'


regards
seekerof

ru really an agent...
how do i join...
how do i escape...

I think they are both right.

Plato is correct in everything he says but his perspective is entirely 3d. The dualism is a concept better employed and enjoyed by the dark side if I may call them that.

Socrates being of creationist mind believed there is in fact no separation whatsoever because the higher up you are so to speak the more everything below you seems the same. Thus, if one is part of the whole then it theoretically correct to believe that the truth can in fact be known. This makes sense but is so difficult to do because you nearly have to be godly to do it. Not so easy.

In the case of Plato, this is a more practical and applicable approach to the realm he finds himself in and shows he is more willing to play the game so to speak, whereas Socrates is a true philosopher in the sense he is going for the big picture, the purpose of all existance.

An interesting question indeed.


[Edited on 12-9-2003 by THENEO]

[Edited on 12-9-2003 by THENEO]

[Edited on 12-9-2003 by THENEO]

does this philisophical dilema/controdiction have a name?

But don't forget about the Greek scholar Polybius, his activities during the Roman period amassed alot.

Great stuff so far guys.

and my ancestors from khemet(kmt)...
so my view is that of a teacher not a prodigy...
hopefully i am not judged for i am still a man...

okay so carry on guys...

"Truth" is a construct of the mind, it depends on the perceptions, values and understanding of the one who percieves it.

The language we use gives shape and structure to our thoughts. If we were without language, we would still be able to think and feel, but we would be limited in what we could think, the complexity of our thoughts.

Language helps us interpret the world in which we live in, but it is not of the world, it is of our minds. When you think of an object such as "tree" or "book" you form the word in your mind, along with a mental construct of the object that represents not just the specific object you're thinking of, but all the other objects that you associate with the same label that share similar characteristics. But the mental construct or the word is not the object, it just represents the object. A map is not the land it represents, it just aids in our understanding of it.

Terms such as "truth" apply only to the language we use to represent the world. When you say something is "true", you're not speaking of some external quality, you're speaking of how the information is consistant with your understanding of the world, and how it helps you exist within the world.

So place me on the side of Plato on this one.

i on the contrary believe that truth isnt contingent on our feelings or ideology... that truth is truth no matter what we believe or how we believe. its not subjective. its absolute. we discover truth. we dont make it up.


where do i fit in with these guys?

yes, you are correct...
the truth is maleable, constructable, and variable depending on ones own perception...
in refrence to the subject viewing it....
without cousciousness it does not really exist unfortunately...
so is religion an institution designed to further practice spiritual cousciousness....
for regardless the truth can be attained by one true and pure in intentions...

My hat's in with Plato....

Matter doesn't do jack without some kind of force applied. Forces aren't noticable via our five senses (except when using tools that translate the result into something registerable by them), so could be regarded as in the "spiritual" realm. One without the other would be useless, therefore I believe in the duality....

matter, force, thought...
all that is...

Ahh....but I see thought as simply another force...

and all that is is all that matters...

There is no "past or future"...there is only "now."

I believe that both, in a sense, where correct. The "Truth" can exist in material form or in spiritual.....both are apart of our human experience and consciousness.

regards
seekerof

there are multiple planes of existence that man is allowed to have power over, or exist in...
i personally believe that one who attempts to attain higher levels of existence will have a better grasp of what the present truth is...
and yes there is no past or present...
there just is...
and there have been many long experiments on this fact of life...