Aristotle And Socrates: How A Shift In Historical Circumstance Affects Tradition

In this paper, we will discuss the major achievements these two famous philosophers made in the development and change of the Western philosophy. They seemed to agree widely on most topics as they both were moving forward to change their world and introduce new ideas which are still being implemented currently.

Based on the literature done by Socrates and Aristotle, it is certain that both philosophers were the developers of the western philosophy on the rule of governance. They advocated for a constitutional government which has been implemented by almost all modern governments. The major issue with the learning of how Socrates practiced his philosophy is that he did not write down his thoughts. This leaves all academicians to depend on what his disciples wrote down in his stead. The Socratic problem has been seen over the years as unclear and his words can be defined not by what Socrates intended but by what was perceived by his disciples. While both Socrates and Aristotle have been seen as major players in the development of western philosophy, Aristotle identified some major points about Socrates.

1. He employed induction in his philosophical thoughts as he lived by them.
2. He claimed to know nothing and so he never gave his own answer to his question rather he listened to other minds to provide them.
3. He was rather concerned with ethical questions compared to nature questions as he deemed them more important to the democratic growth of the nation.
4. He employed the use of “what is it” as he believed people live under a norm instead of questioning every definition and trying to improve it.

They both believed in virtues and more so on intellectual virtues. The difference comes in on how they practiced their teachings; they told of power changing from the knife to the pen. To them, virtues were a source of knowledge as things like strength and beauty are beneficial to humans but only if not devoid of virtues. As they were both charged with impiety and corruption of the youth, we can draw that the government felt threatened. Socrates believed that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one and this is evidently observed from how he died. He refused to pay a bribe for his crime and even flee by boat which had already been set up by his students. He accepted the consequences of his injustice and allowed himself to be executed. His way of teaching was to make his audience think of philosophy and make conclusions on their own. He could engage the audience and make them answer questions to open their minds to the world of philosophy. Unlike Socrates, Aristotle was from a wealthy family and when he was charged with impiety, he opted for the easy way out and fled. This shows the difference between a man of words and actions. Aristotle believed that living a virtuous life has to have happiness as this is what every human being strives to achieve as they toil each day. So even by fleeing, he was supporting his argument of virtuousness is happiness.

Based that all were scholars and teachers, they all valued the role of education for the growth of a nation. They both understood that knowledge would lead to better control of power and diversify how people are ruled. Socrates view in the gathering of knowledge was by throwing a question and giving everyone time to air their opinion. He was a curious mind that understood by letting people feel they are appreciated makes them much more open to what you offer them. He believed in a universal truth that can be shared with all people. He was concerned with notions that challenge the living situations of the people and considered knowledge of basic things such as trees to be trivial. Aristotle was also an empirical philosopher and believed in unchanging truth. He differed from Socrates by giving consideration of the physical matter in his quest to knowledge. He was more of a realist than an ideologist. Most of his writing came from making observations such as proclaiming that the earth is the center of the universe. Outwardly, he accepted the belief that knowledge is universal but in detail, he was for the notion that unless one investigates and comes to a conclusion, all investigations done are invalid. He argued that beauty is beauty and can only be called so from a point of reasoning.

On the matter of rule of the people, they both agreed that government rule is important in the nation. During those times, power was centralized and was mainly portrayed and maintained by use of the military muscle. While both Socrates and Aristotle were looking for a way to give back political power to the civilians, Aristotle made the most progress as he was a teacher to Alexander the Great. Socrates believed that as long as a government was stable, it did not matter if it was ruled by aristocrats or by leaders elected by the people to represent them. He preferred efficiency and peace over liberty and democracy. Aristotle, on the other hand, wanted the rule of the people by the people. He believed that the rule of a nation by the middle class was more important than the aristocratic rule as they understand what the rest of the people are undergoing. The argument had a basis as he was from a powerful family and saw how power can be misused for a person's personal gain.

Aristotle saw the government as a means to provide its people with better amenities and improve on their socio-economic welfare. He disagreed with aristocracy as it could not provide the establishment for a civilized country. He saw the monarchs enrich themselves and make the poor work for them in return for meager wages. In Aristotle Politics, he drew a bigger line between morality and politics as he advocated that a good person is still good no matter the society they live in. According to Aristotle, personal human virtues are not dependent on the social structure available but on the reasoning of the individual. He also argued that property should also be allowed to the held by the private in order to promote the economic growth of the nation. After consideration of all options, Aristotle saw the constitutional government as the better devil as it will be devolved and specialized in labor, thus not all politicians will be corrupt. As the nature of Aristotle, he would always support so much as he was subject to his happiness so he would not come out strongly against the already pre-existing government.

On the theory of human nature, Socrates was a biologist who saw the world in two lenses: that of a material body, and that of an immaterial mind. In this theory, most of his thoughts were written down by Plato who was one of his students. Aristotle was opposed to this. As a biologist, Aristotle acknowledged that the biology included flora and fauna. He suggested that even in their vegetative state, trees are living things as they have all eight characteristics all animals have such as reproducing, use energy, growth and respond to stimuli. Non-human beings also have the same complex structure which they use to sense different environments and initiate different responses of their desire. Humans have all of the same characteristics plus a complex brain which helps them make rational and logical decisions. Each different creature then has a different structure or form. This was Aristotle’s basis of his view on human nature. Thus, he stated that the complexity of human nature varies from one person’s personality to the other.

Human beings are rational beings in their nature and this is demonstrated by the decisions they make each day. Aristotle reported that they vary in rationality as some are seen to cause commotions and misbehave while others are out to correct mistakes made by the irrational beings and this makes the nature of humans very complex to explain. The theory of human nature is them trying to explain if each being can exist on its own or will fail. In his conclusion, he came to the agreement that no single entity can exist without a specific way of living. All humans want a pattern to feel comfortable and this is what identifies us as humans as we cannot be jacks of all trades. This structure is what defines a human and non-human. To Aristotle it made no sense to say a human is complete without any of the three; mind, body, and soul as they are intertwined. This is a religious view of Aristotle on how life is and which the Catholic church partook in as it was the church was a big player in those days. It is difficult to tell what Socrates thought on human nature but through Plato, we learn that he thought people had souls and that we were disposed to act in accord with different stimuli. In his argument, he uses the metals bronze, silver and gold souls to show how different people guide their cognitive brain as he too believed that there are different kinds of people. He thought that the strongest in nature tend to drive the ship as it was the most difficult job, and those with the swiftest words become politicians, and lastly, the quiet one would be the stargazer minding their own business.

In conclusion, both Socrates and Aristotle’s school of thought was quite advanced compared to their time. They saw something much better can be done in the political and educational sector. Aristotle opened an academy to pass his knowledge to the younger generation. It clear that Plato, the student of Socrates, is the one we use to see how Socrates lived and his pattern of thought. Both philosophers lived in the same era and each tried his different way to impart knowledge. Aristotle loved classification of all things while Socrates used oral methods to pass on information. Some scholars actually believe that Socrates did not exist and that he was a creation of Plato, but the notion was shot down as he appears in all of his students’ works and they all hold him in high regard. Their progress in the field of philosophy has been used to create the new world order in political and educational sectors.