The ancient Greek philosophers have left an indelible mark on the world of philosophy, with their ideas and teachings still studied and debated to this day. Among them, three names stand out: a street-corner philosopher, a philosopher who would be king, and a peripatetic philosopher.
Each of them had their own unique views on ethics, wisdom, and happiness. In this article, we will explore the differences between these three great thinkers and how their ideas have shaped the course of philosophy.
So, let’s take a walk through the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and discover what sets them apart.
What Are The Differences Between Socrates Plato And Aristotle
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all ancient Greek philosophers who had a significant impact on the development of Western philosophy. While they shared some similarities in their views on ethics, wisdom, and happiness, there were also notable differences between them.
Socrates was known for his belief that knowledge is virtue in and of itself. He believed that to know the good is to do the good, and that virtue could be taught by teaching someone right from wrong. Plato, one of Socrates’ disciples, shared this belief and expanded on it in his own teachings. He believed that wisdom was the basic virtue and that with it, one could unify all virtues into a whole.
Aristotle, another student of Plato, had a different perspective on ethics. He believed that knowing what was right was not enough; one had to choose to act in the proper manner and create the habit of doing good. This placed Aristotelian ethics on a practical plane, rather than the theoretical one espoused by Socrates and Plato.
In terms of wisdom, Socrates believed that it was the key to achieving happiness. However, he also believed that happiness could be achieved without virtue, although this type of happiness was base and animalistic. Plato stated that virtue was sufficient for happiness and that there was no such thing as “moral luck” to grant rewards. Aristotle believed that virtue was necessary for happiness but insufficient by itself, needing adequate social constructs to help a virtuous person feel satisfaction and contentment.
Another notable difference between these philosophers is their approach to teaching. Socrates didn’t write books; instead, he liked to ask probing questions, which gave rise to the famous Socratic Method of Teaching. Plato wrote famous dialogues featuring his teacher verbally grappling with opponents. Aristotle started his own philosophical school and liked to lecture to his students while taking a walk.
The Life And Philosophy Of Socrates
Socrates was a moral philosopher who lived in Athens, Greece during the 5th century BCE. He was not interested in mathematics or science but was concerned with the quality of his soul and that of others. Socrates’ philosophy examined how we should live, which led him to discussions on various virtues such as wisdom, justice, courage, piety, and more. He saw his mission as one of correcting false beliefs and taught that people should care less about their bodies and possessions and more about their souls. He believed that wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth.
Socrates was a man of principle who lived according to what he believed. He was not interested in material possessions or physical beauty; he was well known to be poor and ugly. He took no money for his teaching as the Sophists did and dedicated his whole life to understanding the virtues so that he could be more virtuous and educate others on how to be virtuous too, which he thought led to true happiness.
One of the most significant aspects of Socrates’ philosophy was his belief that knowledge is virtue in and of itself. He believed that to know the good is to do the good, and that virtue could be taught by teaching someone right from wrong. Socrates’ approach to teaching was through asking probing questions, which gave rise to the famous Socratic Method of Teaching.
Socrates’ uncompromising beliefs about the right way to live were part of the reason why he ended up being condemned to death. He could have saved himself by proposing a reasonable penalty short of death, but he initially refused. He finally rejected an offer of escape as inconsistent with his commitment never to do wrong. Socrates’ impact on Western philosophy was all the greater because of the way in which it ended: at age 70, he was brought to trial on a charge of impiety and sentenced to death by poisoning (the poison probably being hemlock) by a jury of his fellow citizens.
Plato’s Theory Of Forms And Idealism
Plato’s Theory of Forms, also known as the Theory of Ideas, is a central tenet of his philosophy. According to this theory, the physical world we see around us is merely a shadow or an image of the true reality that exists in the Realm of Forms. The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space. They exist in a non-physical realm and are not subject to change or decay like the physical world.
Plato believed that these Forms were the true objects of knowledge and that studying them was the only way to achieve true wisdom. The Forms are the non-physical essences of all things, and objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations or copies of these Forms. For example, a chair in the physical world is just an imperfect copy of the ideal Form of a chair that exists in the Realm of Forms.
Plato’s Theory of Forms is closely related to his concept of Idealism, which holds that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual. According to Idealism, the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. Plato’s Theory of Forms can be seen as a form of Idealism because it posits that the true reality is not found in the physical world but rather in a non-physical realm.
The Theory of Forms has been contested from within Plato’s dialogues, and it remains a point of controversy in philosophy. Nonetheless, it is considered to be a classical solution to the problem of universals, which asks how we can talk about general concepts like “chair” or “beauty” when there are so many different chairs and beauties in the world. The Theory of Forms provides an answer by positing that there is an ideal Form for each concept that exists in a non-physical realm and that all physical instances of that concept are imperfect copies or imitations of that ideal Form.
Aristotle’s Empiricism And Logic
Aristotle’s contributions to philosophy were vast and varied, but one of his most significant areas of focus was on empirical observation and logical reasoning. Aristotle believed that knowledge should be based on observation and experience, rather than solely on abstract reasoning or intuition. This approach was different from the more theoretical approach of his predecessors, Socrates and Plato.
Aristotle’s logical system dominated Western thought until the rise of modern propositional and predicate logic 2000 years later. His emphasis on good reasoning serves as the backdrop for his other investigations, including his natural philosophy and biology. In these areas, Aristotle combined logic with observation to make general, causal claims about the natural world.
However, Aristotle was not a reductive materialist in his understanding of the world. He believed that the psyche, or soul, was a separate form from the material body of living animals. This belief was reflected in his psychological works, which explored the nature of the psyche and its relationship to the body.
Ethics And Virtue In The Works Of Socrates, Plato, And Aristotle
When it comes to ethics and virtue, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle also had different perspectives. Socrates believed that knowledge was virtue in and of itself, and that virtue could be taught by teaching someone right from wrong. Plato expanded on this idea and believed that wisdom was the basic virtue, and with it, one could unify all virtues into a whole.
Aristotle, on the other hand, placed ethics on a practical plane. He believed that knowing what was right was not enough; one had to choose to act in the proper manner and create the habit of doing good. He also believed that virtues functioned as means to safeguard human relations, particularly authentic friendship, without which one’s quest for happiness is frustrated.
In terms of happiness, Socrates believed that it could be achieved with or without virtue, but the latter was necessary for a higher level of happiness. Plato stated that virtue was sufficient for happiness and that there was no such thing as “moral luck” to grant rewards. Aristotle believed that virtue was necessary for happiness but insufficient by itself, needing adequate social constructs to help a virtuous person feel satisfaction and contentment.
Legacy And Influence Of The Three Philosophers
The legacies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are still felt today in modern philosophy. Socrates’ influence can be seen in the Socratic Method of teaching, which is still used in classrooms today. His emphasis on the importance of knowledge and virtue has also had a lasting impact on Western thought.
Plato’s legacy is perhaps the most enduring of the three philosophers. His ideas about the nature of reality, the forms, and the soul have influenced many philosophers throughout history. His concept of an ideal society, as outlined in The Republic, has also had a significant impact on political theory.
Aristotle’s influence can be seen in his contributions to logic, metaphysics, and ethics. His ideas about causality and the nature of change have been particularly influential in science. His ethical theories have also had a lasting impact on Western philosophy, particularly his emphasis on the importance of habit and social constructs in achieving happiness.
Overall, the legacies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have had a profound impact on Western thought, influencing everything from politics to science to ethics. Their ideas continue to be studied and debated by philosophers today.
