Aristo lived in 4th century BC in today’s Greece, developed ideas on several subjects from logic and metaphysics to empirical biology. Confucius, on the other hand, had lived in today’s China in 6th century BC, and was a political thinker and educator whose work mostly focused on the ideal social order and ethics. These two distinct philosophers both left extensive ideas on how political and social order should be. This paper will compare and contrast these two influential thinkers in terms of their ideas on individual ethics and social order. The thinkers’ works on various subjects will not be included to this analysis due to the length limitations and the need to focus on the themes that are studies by both of them.
Aristotle and plato also share some similarities, when aristotle mentions how we should be happy and not aim to what will get us happy. Plato also mentions our idea is ours and won 't amount to any physical item or goal. What they share there is when it comes to happiness and ideas we should already be happy and how our ideas wont be perfect as long as we can better ourselves thats what should matter and make us
Though partially unrealistic, but functional, Plato’s and Aristotle’s models of their ideas of society, they both aim at happiness, justice, self-governance, and a virtuous life for each individual as a part of the community. Aristotle and Plato, theorize that virtue must be gained though practice and a form of self-control, and how to achieve happiness. In Aristotle’s, Ethics, Books 1., he studies ethics and asserts that there is an ultimate good which is both complete and self-sufficient. Aristotle believes that this ultimate good is happiness; it means living well. In Book 1, Chapter VII, Aristotle talks about the good being happiness, he proclaims that in accordance of virtue, human good turns out to be activity of the soul.
As far as the lessons we could extract today from Plato and Aristotle in regards to their political theories, our understanding more specific political structures (i.e. democracy) would improve and could possibly give way to future trends similar to that of
He specifically mentions the theory of “forms” which Plato introduced in his text, The Republic. Aristotle then proposes his own theory of forms, which is quite different from Plato’s. Though both philosophers have carefully constructed theories about forms, the best definition of a form ends up being a combination
If Plato had portrayed an Ideal State in hid republic which could be built in heaven only, Aristotle came down to earth while drawing the outline of his ideal state. Like a true scientist he does not attempt any impossible scheme in formulating his theory if Ideal State. His ideal state is attainable on his earth. We must first consider not only what is ideal but also what is the best attainable in actual practice. The only difference between a monarchy and an aristocracy is that in the first case virtue is centered in one person.
Both had something to do with Athenian politics. So he was bound to be involved in it himself as well. Plato was not a supporter of any of the political parties at that time as they were not just. He found himself continuingly opposing it instead of playing an active role in the politics. He was a follower of Socrates and he supported him as he was the most honest and virtuous in his time.
As the painting analogy suggests happiness of the city is not about individual well-being but rather the common state of majority being happy. “(…) not picking out a few happy people and putting them in it, but making the whole city happy (420c)”. Plato argues that suitable happiness of the parts (individuals’ self-interest) is expendable for the greatest possible city as a whole (common good). His argument could be understood as the differentiation of the city and the citizen; happiness of a city is something other than the happiness of the citizens, it is not reducible in that sense, however they are intertwined because a city cannot exist without citizens to reign over. The relationship between these two entities is that nobody should be allowed any kind of happiness that would prevent them from doing their jobs.
There are three parts of the soul corresponding to the classes in the city, the rational part to the wisdom of the rulers, the spirited part to the courage of the soldiers, the appetitive part representing the rest of the population whose defining motivation material gain. Plato clearly goes on the assumption that human beings are happy insofar as they achieve the goals they cherish. Citizens of the third class who supposedly covet nothing but material goods. Plato grants them free enjoyment of all the customary goods that he has denied to the upper classes. The members of the third class are quite neglected in Plato’s ideal city; no education is provided for them.
In the theory of Forms of Plato he believes in the great height, health, and been strong, are the truth within the essential things instead of the beautiful and good things. The hypothesis of the forms consist of comparing the consequence in life and to secure a higher hypothesis. Socrates not giving a true explanation of consequences states of the soul the following: "the attributes applied to the soul can be occupied to whatever the life causes are as been essential but can 't lose. The soul is not compatible which states that is immortal. Phadeo and Plato state to the concept of tallness and health etc, that knowledge can 't be obtain by perception of not many evidence for the exist of some kinds of Forms.