December 24, 2011
Realist Philosophies of Plato and Aristotle
Plato (left) and Aristotle (right) philosophizing.
Realism is a position that principles (like justice) and entities (like cats): 1. exist in reality, and; 2. are knowable by the intellect (Realism is basically articulated common sense).
The difference between the ‘Extreme Realism’ of Plato and ‘Moderate Realism’ of Aristotle is in the entities (things, especially living things, like cats and eggs and people).
Plato thinks that principles like justice are: i. universal, and; ii. transcendent (i. universal, because it’s the same one principle behind many concrete just ‘things,’ like just people or just courts of law, yet; ii. transcendent, since such principles doesn’t intrinsically belong to who they are; for example, ‘just’ people can turn in to ‘evil’ people – the just-ness transcends their humanity).
Because of that, Plato thinks that transcendence (ii.) must be the case with the essence or nature of entities too. However, Aristotle thinks the more common sensical thing and says that, even though their nature is universal (i.) within a species, entities have their natures within them (not ii. – cats all possess the nature of a ‘cat’).
So, if the Platonic focus is more transcendent and other-worldly. Aristotle would bring in perhaps a more pervading sense of highlighting transcendence and nature of things from within the concrete. I think good Realist philosophy upholds both in their respective areas, but, either way, admitting that such principles and entities exist (and are knowable) is a very good start in authentic philosophy.
Dicky P said,
December 28, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Why do you write as if people are idiots? Catholic Arrogance?
TTM said,
December 28, 2011 at 8:17 pm
I don’t.
Philosophers often write as if it’s necessary to write in convoluted ways in order to philosophise. I don’t think this is the case.
I do believe that philosophy should be accessible to everybody (since everyone has the necessary tool for philosophy: an intellect), so I try to write with the same easy-to-comprehend clarity as C. S. Lewis or Dr. Peter Kreeft.
Also, I think a succinct piece of writing displays the essence of what philosophy is trying to get at (principles of things) much better than a convoluted one does, so it’s simply good practice.