All posts by Riley Zeng

Plato and Aristotle’s scientific method

What is the history of Science? How did we take our first steps toward science, or where is the starting point of science? Since people have systematically made knowledge about the world for millennia, there’s no specific starting point. But a reasonable place to start is ancient Greece, which the cornerstone of scientific inquiry belongs to. The Greeks practice Natural philosophy, meaning “self-conscious inquiry to nature”.Few individuals have influenced the world and many of today’s thinkers, like Plato and Aristotle. Both of them contribute to the great history of Science after Socrates.

  Socrates held that knowledge comes from asking questions. By constantly asking questions so that students can steadily break down a big problem into the smaller part which they can test the hypothesis against is called the Socratic method. This method provides what is wrong which narrows down the possibilities of what might be right. However, Socrates’s method inspired his greatest legacy, his student Plato, and his student’s student Aristotle. Both of them were inspired by Socratic’s method, but they arrived at some different conclusions.

Plato’s Theory of Forms asserts that all things that exist in reality are mere representations of perfect metaphysical constructs which he called the Forms. The reality is the material stuff we see and interact with daily. The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space, which exist beyond reality. “Even though the Forms are abstract, that doesn’t mean they are not real. The Forms are more ‘real’ than any individual physical objects. To Plato, it’s like the essence of all things. So, concepts like Redness, Roundness, Beauty, Justice, or Goodness are Forms. In other words, how do you know a chair is “ a chair”, that ’s because it has the chariness of chair. Individual objects like a red book, a round ball, a beautiful girl, a just action, or a good person reside in the physical realm and are simply different examples of the Forms.”(study.com) He separates the sensible world with the intelligible world because he holds that only the forms could be objects of knowledge and the ultimate truth. Plato would come up with a theory first, then try to fit data into his theory. “The intelligible truths could be known with the certainty of geometry and deductive reasoning. What could be observed of the material world, however, was by definition imperfect and deceptive, not ideal. The Platonic way of knowledge, therefore, emphasized reasoning as a method, downplaying the importance of observation.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

  Compare to Plato’s idealistic of abstraction, Aristotle ’s philosophy made more common sense for today’s science. His idea is based on empirical evidence: he observed the world then came up with a theory that explains it since he believes Empiricism is the starting point .“Science (epistêmê), for Aristotle, is a body of properly arranged knowledge or learning—the empirical facts, but also their ordering and display are of crucial importance.”(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Besides, Aristotle’s method also required to be systematic logical to be right.“Aristotle’s inductive-deductive method used inductions from observations to infer general principles, deductions from those principles to check against further observations, and more cycles of induction and deduction to continue the advance of knowledge.”(Wikipedia) This method is very similar to what we do today. We derived a conclusion based on observation and data to support, and by using some of our general knowledge or common sense to further observe and generate a conclusion.

  Plato’s theory is based on senses and reasoning, whereas Aristotle preferred to have observation and experiment. Both of them have contributed to the great history of science, and how we think in our world today. The two theories can both generate a well fit distinctive but reasonable conclusion through a different process. But Aristotle’s theory can be convincingly applied to the modern world.

Aristotle’s​ Aesthetics

Throughout the ages, art has been an essential part of our life. It could be found anywhere in the history of mankind. However, art has also been a popular topic among philosophers. Many great minds have theorized on the nature of art. One of the most significant thinkers who tackle the nature of art is Aristotle.

  Aristotle followed one of the most emphatic thinkers to comment on the nature of art, which was his teacher Plato. Nevertheless, most of the philosophers, just like Plato and Aristotle, they were forced to establish a theory of art based heavily on their metaphysical views about the nature of the world. Therefore, to understand Aristotle’s perspective towards art, understanding his metaphysics is crucial.

  Plato believed that all things that exist in reality are mere representations of perfect metaphysical constructs which he called the Forms. He separates the sensible world with the intelligible world because he holds that the intelligible world is the only reality. But Aristotle suggests that such separation removes any intelligibility and meaning to the world. According to him “the intelligibility is present in every being and everything. The world consists of substances. The substance can be either matter or form, or a compound of both”. 

  Since they possess their metaphysics, their perspective towards the notion of art differs. “For Aristotle, the notion of form was a part of all matter and the distinction between the form and the actual substance that made up an object was merely an intellectual one.”This bears a relation to art because for both Plato and Aristotle art is an imitation of the actual world (Palmer, pp 447-452). However, although they both thought of art as an imitation, they interpret the nature of this imitation in opposing manners. “While Plato condemns art because it is in effect a copy of a copy – since reality in imitation of the Forms and art is then imitation of reality – Aristotle defends art by saying that in the appreciation of art the viewer receives a certain “cognitive value” from the experience (Stumpf, p 99).” he saw it as useful. He believed our body needs to experience a full range of emotions to stay in balance. He argued that, if we have not been sad in a while, or had a good adrenaline rush, we can start to crave those feelings. Art can step into our life and give the experience of emotion. When we finally experience the sensations we feel a pleasurable release that Aristotle called “Catharsis”. The theory resolves a little conundrum in an aesthetic that’s known as the “Problem of Tragedy”. This is the weird puzzle of why people would be paid to walk into a theatre and are prepared to cry for two hours. This is an example of people who made themselves express strong negative emotions in a safe context and the emotional purge that comes with the experience of satisfied people. The purging of the emotions “through pity and fear”, that is accomplished by a tragedy.

Aristotle doesn’t only disagree with Plato about the notion of art. Compared to his teacher, Aristotle proceeded to a more serious investigation of aesthetics phenomena to develop by scientific analysis certain principles of beauty and art. “In his treatises on poetry and rhetoric he gives us, along with a theory of these arts, certain general principles of beauty; and scattered among his other writings we find many valuable suggestions on the same subject. He seeks (in the Metaphysics) to distinguish the good and the beautiful by saying that the former is always in action (`en praxis) whereas the latter may exist in motionless things as well (`en akinetois.)”( art andpopularculture.com) While good is derived only by taking a certain action, beauty could be derived from nothing. Aristotle has also stated his theory of beauty in the Metaphysic“The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree” (The Complete Works of Aristotle Barnes ed., volume 2, 1705, 1078a36)” This is which he commented to be the absence of all lust or desire in the pleasure it bestows.

  As a philosopher and an aesthetician, Aristotle had thought a lot about art. Although he maintains that art is an imitation, he holds that art is useful since it contributes to the share of negative emotions. He argued about the standard of beauty and art and gives inspiration to descendants.