IndexIntroductionDiscussionConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionFor centuries, great philosophers have pondered what it means to be good. Perhaps two of the most influential philosophers on this question were Plato and Aristotle. Although their philosophies are largely different, they both define the “good life.” When we compare these men, we can gain perspective on how we define the good life for ourselves and how we can find value in the activities we do day to day. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Chronological Discussion, Plato comes first. Therefore, we will start with his philosophy. Plato is probably best known for his Allegory of the Cave. In this dialogue, Socrates sets a scene for his student Glaucon. In short, there are three men in a cave and all they can see are shadows on the wall coming from the outside world. Shadows are all these men have ever known. After setting the scene, Socrates asks hypothetical questions about the people in the cave. He proposes that if you dragged a man from inside the cave into the "real world" he would go through phases of shock and disbelief, but would eventually adapt. Plato claims that the main goal is to enlighten others in the cave. Plato believes in the theory of forms. This means that everything we see is only a shadow of what is. For example, if I were watching the sunrise on the beach, Plato would say that I was only watching a shadow of what the sunrise is. Plato would then take me to see the true shape of the sunrise, which may actually be a very large television screen installed by NASA. Of course, this example might be a little extreme and Plato might just be a little dead, so let's do another interpretation. example. Let's say I think the world is flat. An astronaut would then show me how round the world actually is by taking me into space and showing me firsthand that it is round. Perhaps the best example of this comes from the philosopher David Macintosh who illustrates, in an article on Platonic thought, a fundamental application of this. He states: “Take for example a perfect triangle, as it might be described by a mathematician. This would be a description of the Form or Idea of ​​(a) Triangle. Plato says that such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their realm. Considering this idea of ​​a perfect triangle, we might even be tempted to take a pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will obviously fail. Plato would say that men's attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Idea or Shape of a triangle and the drawing we came up with is a way to compare the perfect and the imperfect. The quality of our drawing will depend on our ability to recognize the shape of the triangle. Although no one has ever seen a perfect triangle, for Plato this is not a problem. If we can conceive the Idea or Form of a perfect triangle in our mind, then the Idea of ​​Triangle must exist. After this example, Macintosh then proceeds to talk about how Plato would inform others about the Form of a Triangle. According to Plato's philosophy, the "good life" is transcendence. This simply means being enlightened and teaching others. Beyond that, it is important to realize that Plato was very adamant about how to “enlighten” someone in the correct way. This means not being arrogant and respectfully showing the true Form to othersof the object/topic x. In his work Apology, Plato shows his sense of respect as he does not agree with the standard. This can be seen when he says, “I thought to myself: I am wiser than this man; probably none of us knows anything really good, but thinks he has knowledge, when he doesn't have it, while I, having no knowledge, think I don't have it. This, in short, is Plato's idea of ​​the good life. Now that we're done with Plato for now, it's time to look at his hot-headed counterpart and pupil, Aristotle. Aristotle is probably best known for his work Nicomachean Ethics. In this book Aristotle exposes his idea of ​​the "good life" and rejects the Theory of Form. He argues that the only way to live the “good life” is “…virtuous activity of the soul, of a certain kind.” For Aristotle, virtue is being “…capable of noble [and good] acts.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 75) In addition to being virtuous, one must function adequately in society. This idea is comparable to the example provided by Macintosh. While Plato theorized about a perfect triangle, Aristotle focused not on how there could be a perfect triangle, but rather on how he could make the triangle the best it could be by learning it. Now, of course, these two philosophers would not focus on such meaningless things; we will leave the triangles to Pythagoras. To get a better view of these two schools of thought, let's replace the triangle with society. In Plato's mind, society as we know it may be only a shadow of what it is. For example, society may be extremely “broken,” to the point of thinking it is perfect. It would take someone or an event to solve this problem. For lack of a better example, let's look at it from a Christian perspective. Suppose Jesus returns next year. He enlightened people to follow him. Those people would enlighten others, and those people would enlighten others and so on. Those who have been enlightened would have an obligation to teach others. Once you have enlightened others, you have lived the “good life.” Aristotle, however, would have a different approach. He would say that society is exactly what it is, and it is our responsibility to know it. He probably wouldn't care whether someone would come to enlighten him or not. He would say it's best for us to learn how we function. Aristotle would say that we should focus on certainty. Once you learn where you function in society, you have lived in society. At this point, it is quite clear to see how Plato and Aristotle differ: it might even seem that they are opposites. However, they share some beliefs. Both, for example, believe in a multi-level society. They don't see it negatively, but simply as a fact of life. Plato believed that those who had knowledge should rule. Below the “rulers” are “protectors” and “producers.” Aristotle believed that everyone had their place. An example of this can be seen in running a business. At the top we have the founder/CEO. Next we have financial advice. Below them we have normal employees. Then we have the customers. Finally we have the janitors. If any of these parts were missing, a chain reaction would cause the whole thing to collapse. I also agree about the primary goal of the good life. They would say you have to be a functioning member of society. Although their definitions of function may differ, at that point they meet. Both would also say that knowledge is something all people should aspire to. For them, knowledge is the good life. For Plato, acquiring knowledge means transcending and understanding the true Form. While Aristotle thought that knowledge was based on certainty. Please note: this is just an example. Get. 21.