Skip to main content

From Quora on Plato and Aristotle

Plato's Tripartite Soul Theory: Meaning, Arguments, and Criticism ...


More than a year ago, someone asked the following question on Quora: 

"Is there any way to reconcile Plato and Aristotle? I like them both. How strong is the schism between them?" 

There is much with which I could quarrel in the framing of the question, aside from vagueness. The personal-sounding note, as if the question had gone to school with them both and retained some fondness for their memory. No ... he didn't. They are the collective names given to sets of writings and the systems of ideas we think we find therein. We can understand and appreciate them. The word "like" sounds wrong. 

"How strong is the schism?" Again, the wording is off. But this is the Trump era, and the predicate "strong" is ubiquitous. 

My quibbles notwithstanding, two Quorans offered answers to this question at the time. I was one of them. But I won't quote my own answer today. I'll give you a good chunk of the other one, which frankly is more informative. It comes from Paul Trejo, a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin. He says:

"The modern myth claims that Plato was an Idealist while Aristotle was a Materialist, and that is as far apart as one can go in Philosophy.

"The error of that view is the attribution of the title of Materialist to Aristotle. Aristotle’s Idealism was always equal to his Materialism. The best way to think of Aristotle is to use his famous symbol, “The Golden Mean” — Moderation in all things. Aristotle was moderately an Idealist, and moderately a Materialist. His work represents the Golden Mean between the extremes.
"Aristotle agreed with Plato that Reason and only Reason, is the ultimate measure of the human being.
"The Ethics of Plato and Aristotle are very similar. Generally speaking, they both divided the human mind into Appetites, Passions and Reason. They both regarded Appetites as the lowest mode of human life. They regarded Passions as the middle mode of life. They regarded Reason as the highest mode of life.
"They also agreed that most people would be motivated by Appetites; a smaller number would be motivated by Passions; and only a few would be motivated by Reason.
"They also agreed that those few who are motivated by Reason are best suited to rule the City-State."
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more