Plato or Aristotle?

Aristotle because he's not a baldlet who wrote thousands of pages trying to prove his metaphysical waifu existed.

I keep hearing that Aristotle's metaphysics are far superior, could anyone elaborate?

Aristotle has had a greater impact on western civilization by far. Logic, common-sense moderate realism, natural philosophy, the beginnings of science - it was all developed by this genius.

Plato
>writes "dialogues" where his mary sue self-insert BTFOs everyone or everyone just agrees with what he says
>disrespects his teacher by using him as said self-insert
>hates life and pleasure
>proto-Christian
>tried to influence some literal who tyrant, got BTFO and put in prison

Aristotle
>writes clear, unpretentious arguments
>respects his teacher while contesting his ideas
>life-affirming ethics, recognizes pleasure as good but not the highest good
>proto-scientific
>taught Alexander the Great

What was that nietzsche line about Plato being the most beautiful growth of antiquity and that socrates crushed it or something like that?

Why do I have to chose?

Neither. Focus on the true philosophers of the era.

...

OH BLESSED MAN, THE DISPUTE CAN BE SOLVED ONLY BY THE BEST VIRGIN V. CHAD MEME

>made up idealistic fantasy world because they're failures in the real world
this shit is hysterical

Diogenes

I guess you could say one of the sticking points is Plato's transcendence contra Aristotle's immanence.
Both admit forms as being what the content of a given thing is, and while Aristotle anchors it in what he calls primary substances / actual stuff, Plato places his forms outside of the imperfect world.
Plato had his forms in a separate realm entirely to save the possibility of knowledge from the world of constant flux, while Aristotle thought that in all cases of change something remained - his view of
change being two contraries (i.e. here & there, pale & tan, and other opposing states of being) which were formal, and matter being the remaining thing that underlies all change (form being the realization
of a given matter's potentials - the hylomorphic compound).
So, for Aristotle explanation is located wholly in 'this' world as the being and essence of a thing is present before us. Plato on the other hand has an issue linking the world of forms to the actual world as it is
unclear how mediation is possible between the two. That is, a form, which Plato views as necessarily perfect, is separate from its imperfect instances - which leads to a question of how given things 'participate'
in their proper form.

This is just one argument off the top of my head.

...

Heraclitus. nietzsche. Homer

t. Plato

>tfw the main reason you like Plato is for the fantasy world

am... am i a failure??

Plato learned from the mistakes of those who preceded him but Aristotle did not. Plato knew better than to mix his epistemic methodology with natural sciences.

>Nietzsche

Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.

This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor port. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce.

You-Know-Who

But Plato literally explained his morality by using the sun as a metaphor for the good??

Escrotol.

>Kneecha fanboy
>can't tell the difference between a metaphor and an analogy

Why am I not surprised?

>nous like polished mirror reflecting the monad

Translation:
Aristotle believed reality existed outside the mind.
Plato believed it was within.

This is why no one respects philosophy.

Translation:
I dont understand Plato or Aristotle

Childhood is when you idolize Plato. Adulthood is when you realize Aristotle makes more sense.

Oh dear

Shut up Hegel

Sounds like you've completely mixed up the ideas family

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Pseuds, not even once. If I were in a real life conversation with you I would probably say something like "But that's not exactly correct because..." and then prove you wrong.

Stop trying to condense philosophers into one or two lines that is EXACTLY how it doesn't work.

*Freshman year of college is when you idolize Plato

I'm sure you would expand your case into a giant slurry of meaningless crap and use words like axiom, element, essence, ontology, fragmentation, fundamental pre-fabrications, but you would just be repeating what I said back to me because frankly, the world isn't as complex as Veeky Forums wishes it were. You laugh because you know that despite all the money you spent on university, that the Devil knows no more than us poor fools.

Not him, but really, it seems like you don't understand what you're talking about. For instance, if Plato thought "reality" (i.e. the substance of objects) existed in the mind, the mind would have direct access to this reality, since it would be apparent in it, and wouldn't need recourse to perception. But the entire point of the Platonic forms is that they are essences of being which cannot be directly perceived, they can only be conceived with concentrated thought, and even then, imperfectly. Human reason is perverted by material factors, and can approached divinity, but the reason of the gods is necessarily untainted, perfect, and pure.

>meaningless crap and use words like axiom, element, essence, ontology

WESTERN PHILOSOPHY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

Thanks for proving my point.

What was your point? Oh, right, your point was that you don't know what you're talking about. You're welcome.

It refers to Plato's realm of forms as the source of knowledge vs Aristotle's more empirical outlook.

Why are you all hating on Plato? I thought Aristotle was the shit one

both were incredibly enlightening and have a great impact on where we are today. Neither could transcend the reigning ideology of a stratified society, and both their ideas of an ideal society ran counter to what we today would consider a good and fair society.

Aristotle is the philosopher of (now-)common sense. However, I think a Platonic conception of eros is very fruitful for ethics — dismissed by people like Kant and Mill, it's been seeing a comeback in Kierkegaard and Iris Murdoch.

Aristotle. By a mile. P-man has the perk of being the one to gift socrates to the rest of humanity but his actual philosophy is impossible to take seriously.

he was wrong about everything but plato was wronger about everything

Veeky Forums, everyone.

provide a specific example to back up these two incredible claims about plato and aristotle

I'm with you until you say:
>the Platonic forms ... cannot be directly perceived, they can only be conceived ...
Whether you mean it or not, 'conceived' denotes a product of the imagination or else a Lockean 'Idea' derived from the thing-itself. Plato clearly states that the Forms can be directly perceived (although you're correct in saying that this is unsustainable; thus the cruel joke of philosophy is that only the philosopher knows how ignorant they will be). See Sym. 210e6-211a2, 211a7-b3:
>all of a sudden he will catch sight of something wonderfully beautiful in its nature ... it always is and neither comes to be nor passes away, neither waxes nor wanes ... Nor will the beautiful appear to him in the guise of a face or hands or anything else that belongs to the body. It will not appear to him as one idea or one kind of knowledge. It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself, it is always one in form.
and then, in 211e1-212a1:
>if someone got to see the Beautiful itself, absolute, pure, unmixed, not polluted by human flesh or colors or any other great nonsense of mortality, but if he could see the divine Beauty itself in its one form?
There's also the analogy in Phaedrus about the charioteer who glimpses the gods (Forms), but struggles to stay aloft; anamnesis in the Meno; the clusterfuck of the Same and Different in Timaeus, etc.

There is one thing that jumps to mind in your defense: Socrates, being strung along, admits to Parmenides that nothing that exists can perceive the Forms. I have serious qualms, however, that Plato fully endorses the self-critique of Forms in the Parmenides — for one, the arguments against Socrates are very specious, which leads me to believe that the point of the dialogue is a type of philosophical exercise left to the reader. [Pierre Hadot puts forth this view convincingly, though his musings can be batshit.] The narrative frame of young Socrates doesn't seem unimportant either.

Plato for fuck’s sake he figured everything out 2500 years ago Aristotle and the Empiricist niggers are still mad about him and shitpost daily against Platonist wisdom

Unfortunately we will never know. It would only be fair to judge based on their finished works-- none of which still exist for Aristotle. What if we had his main treatises and only Plato's notes?

Fine, but what I meant by "directly perceive" was perceive in the way one perceives an animal or a face. You don't literally see the form as you would see a face, you see something that triggers the conception of a form, which is faulty and impermanent, because the human mind is.

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "directly perceive." Are you arguing for naïve realism, or are you simply saying that we don't see the Form with our eyes? If you're arguing for direct realism (that we see objects, like faces or animals, as they are), buddy.. you got some problems waiting for you. If you're arguing that we don't see the Form with our eyes — no, duh. We don't see anything solely with our eyes, we perceive it. Perception of the Form is similar to perception of objects, except that it bypasses our senses. Why do you think Socrates went barefoot in winter, or drank without getting drunk? He was on another level, above sense-dependent perception.

Either way, we don't personally 'conceive' of the Form — the very language suggests parenthood. We perceive it for a limited amount of time (if we're good boys and do what Socrates says).

>Perception of the Form is similar to perception of objects, except that it bypasses our senses.

Then what is left to perceive with? The mind. The Form is impressed on your mind by mental perception. That's all I meant by "conceived."

>I thought Aristotle was the shit one
Well you thought wrong.

Alright, groovy — just got caught up in lingo-limbo.

I doubt it. N. loved the pre-Socratics and the Ancient Greece ethos, and believed Socrates corrupted it. Socrates crushing the world of Plato doesn't really make sense.