Aristotle Vs Plato Analysis

723 Words3 Pages
Big questions about life, its purpose or a man in general have always bothered philosophers. That is why ever since the ancient times they have proposed different kinds of answers to those questions. As one of the most famous ancient philosophers, Plato and Aristotle have pondered on big questions as well, mostly on the question of the nature of a man. Even though both of them have agreed that a man has to be more than just a body, that is a man has to have a soul to his body, their approaches and arguments for the theory differ greatly. However, both approaches are reasonable and deserve to be considered. To begin with Plato, in “Phaedo”, one of his “Five Dialogues”, he proposes four arguments for the separation of the mortal body and the immortal soul. The first argument or the Argument from Opposites argues that everything comes out of its opposite. For instance, if something…show more content…
They both agreed that a human has both body and soul. However, they disagreed on the question of soul’s immortality. In my opinion, Aristotle’s arguments for the existence of a soul are more convincing because he ties body, soul and intellect together explaining that they can form a human only when they are conjoined. That point of view is more convincing because a person does not feel like they can be strictly divided into parts. All that a person is should therefore be tied together. Nevertheless, Plato’s arguments for the immortality of a soul make more sense as they, unlike Aristotle’s, follow naturally. If a soul is what makes body alive, which is a statement both philosophers agreed on, it is not logical that it stays trapped inside the body after death. Furthermore, since a soul has affinity for immaterial world as well as for completeness and happiness, it should follow that it is meant for more than this material world, that is
Open Document