How did Plato and Aristotle differ in their opinions on government
1u20136 of his Politics, Aristotle criticizes Platou2019s supposed theories of government.
However itu2019s mostly demolishing a straw man: Aristotle here merely uses Plato as a launching pad to explain his own views.
,In particular, Aristotle claims Plato is a socialist/communist u2014 a political philosophy he (Aristotle) opposes.
,Plato himself, I believe, did not have (or in any case write about) definite theories of civil government.
The political discussion of the Republic is a didactic metaphor (and presented as such throughout, starting with 2.
368c-e) to investigate the workings and right government of the u2018city of ones soul.
u2019,The Republic: Platou2019s Allegory for the Human SoulI suspect Plato believed that no form of government would work unless and until more people individually became philosophers, and hence acquired the art of self-rule.
And also that in a society of philosophers the outward form of government would be largely unimportant.
,I also think Plato perhaps drops a hint that his own political views tend towards anarchism in 2.
369b et seq.
Plato and Aristotle similarities and differences
The only difference is their understanding of the same thing.
Their saying the same thing.
Im thrilled by the question, because cotton is cotton, no matter how you choose to use it or stuff it.
Different field, same tree(hahaha).
Plato and Aristotle comparison PDF
Itu2019s a young science: What do linguists do?:,Weu2019re a new field.
(Linguistics Departments, for example, became widespread after the 1950s.
) But itu2019s a very old field of study (research in other departments like Anthropology and Philosophy has been going on since the earliest universities, and before that by the earliest scientists, including but also before the Ancient Greek philosophers).
,Linguistics has been a general curiosity of humans throughout recorded history.
But modern Linguistics emerged relatively recently.
,Examples of early research about language include:,The ancient Greek philsophers like Plato and Aristotle.
They identified many of the major themes of research still relevant today.
For example, arbitrariness of the sign became a standard assumption in Linguistics since the research of Ferdinand de Saussure about 100 years ago, but it was already introduced by Plato and others.
(On arbitrariness more generally see also: What is it about some dialects that make them sound inherently more or less sophisticated?),Sanskrit grammar was studied by Pu0101u1e47ini whose ideas are remarkably similar to some theories today.
This is from about the same time period as the Greek classical work in philosophy of language.
,The earliest grammatical writing I know about was in Babylonia between 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.
There are two texts known as the u201cOld-Babylonian Grammatical Textsu201d and the u201cNeo-Babylonian Grammatical Textsu201d.
You can read some of the second here: CCP 6.
6 - Neo-Babylonian Grammatical Text.
Iu2019m not seeing any obvious articles on Wikipedia to link to about this, but thereu2019s a nice article by Jack Fellman u201cThe First Linguistsu201d that appeared in Language Sciences 29 in 1974 (also here: The First Linguists but the PDF link doesnu2019t seem to be working at the moment).
Searching for u201cBabylonian Grammatical Textsu201d on Google gives a number of results including this article: On the Old Babylonian Understanding of Grammar: A Reexamination of OBGT VI-X.
Overall these texts were more descriptive than theoretical and often compared Sumerian to Akkadian grammar, just listing equivalents.
Still, for something almost 4,000 years old it is a relatively sophisticated analysis, not too different from some pedagogical textbooks today.
,Another major tradition, but later, was by Arab grammarians.
,Then I believe we can talk about the rise of modern Linguistics with two major events:,Historical linguistics, which can probably be considered the first scientific approach to structural questions about language, was launched by William Jones popularizing his observations about the similarities between Latin and Greek to Sanskrit, and suggesting a common ancestor.
That lead to others such as the brothers Grimm doing a lot of research about language relationship and linguistic structure during the 1800s.
Similar ideas of language relationship are not new, but the scientific perspective seems to be: During antiquity, did anyone in Greece or Rome recognize similarities between Greek and Latin languages and hypothesize relationships between them? Today, the prominence of historical linguistics has now declined overall for a focus on more theoretical issues.
,Noam Chomskyu2019s work during the 1950s and 1960s established/stabilized Linguistics as a distinct field and as a science per se.
(The Linguistics Society of America already existed about 100 years ago, for example, but it is my understanding it was more of a research interest than a u2018fieldu2019 at the time, and few people were u2018Professors of Linguisticsu2019 per se but instead professors in other fields specializing in language, especially Anthropology, see below about Language.
) It was previously a cross-disciplinary area of research including anthropology, psychology, literature/languages, history, philosophy/logic, etc.
Linguistics research related to modern research was not uncommon during the 1800s and early 1900s, but Chomskyu2019s work in making it a distinctive field resulted in many u201cLinguisticsu201d Departments at American universities for example.
It is now established as a distinct field of research (but still closely tied to many other fields).
In that sense, Linguistics is only a little more than half a century old.
But Chomskyu2019s ideas were not disconnected from earlier research, and he built on ideas from various other scholars like Ferdinand de Saussure, and he formalized many ideas from earlier research about language structure.
,Ironically, Chomskyu2019s formalization of Linguistics as a science has also met some backlash from other researchers who do not agree with his approach, who still wish for Linguistics research to be considered scientific, but not for the reasons that Chomsky succeeded at establishing it as such, and this academic dispute is ongoing, and research continues.
Look into Cognitive Linguistics as a field for more on that.
,Something I did recently out of curiosity and because I was looking for early research that might be relevant to a project Iu2019m working on might also be helpful if you want to have a sense of how Linguistics changed during the last 100 years.
Take a look at the journal published by the Linguistics Society of America: Language (on JSTOR, and the latest volumes are on Project MUSE: itu2019s free to view the titles of articles in each volume and sometimes an abstract, although youu2019ll need an account to read any individual articles).
Youu2019ll see how things shifted from the first half of the 1900s starting in the 1960s or so.
One major change is that Chomsky elevated syntax to a central role when it was previously not often discussed.
Now for some syntax is seen as the core of Linguistics.
And during that time you will also see themes like Anthropology (descriptive work) and historical linguistics research start to decline in popularity over the last 50 years or so, as more theoretical topics have become more prominent.
Similarly, today some linguists speak only one or a couple languages: How many languages can a typical professor of linguistics speak more-or-less fluently? But major figures in Linguistics more than 50 years ago often did know many languages, partly because it was useful for research (In 16th century Latin was the main language in scientific literature, but when did English become the main language in Science?), and partly because that was the kind of work they did.
Another interesting perspective is in looking at prescriptive grammars from the 1800s.
The idea of purely descriptive Linguistics was not popularized until the mid-1900s either (somewhat independently of Chomsky), and before that there are often serious Linguistics research articles/books that devote a lot of pages to telling the reader about common grammatical errors they should avoid, etc.
But within those pages there is also a lot of valuable insight in terms of descriptive observations, especially in the form of the u2018errorsu2019 themselves, which really are a way of showing changes developing.
Some linguists have taken advantage of that information for research about the use of English and other languages during the 1800s because there arenu2019t always better sources.
For example, thereu2019s a new book talking about some ways to do this: Language between description and prescription : verbs and verb categories in nineteenth-century grammars of English by Lieselotte Anderwald.
More generally, the 1800s is the time when we see the first usage of many modern Linguistics terms, like u201csubordinationu201d and u201ccoordinationu201d (part of my own research I wonu2019t go into in detail at the moment).
For the most part, these terms were adopted or adapted directly from traditional grammatical descriptions of Latin and Greek (and often developed during the 1800s for the purpose of improving those descriptions, or comparing them to other modern languages).
The result is that until the work of Chomsky and others (some a bit earlier) most of the comparisons between languages were done as if languages should be like Latin and Greek, or at the very least like they can be described using the same grammatical system (for more on that, see: Why do old languages like Latin, old Greek and Sanskrit appear to be more complete and precise than their modern counterparts?),Given how little we know confidently about how language works (or with a general consensus among all linguists), I sometimes think of Linguistics in comparison to Alchemy, while our version of Chemistry is still developing.
Itu2019s a young science.
As written in the linked answer at the beginning of this one:
Plato vs Aristotle art
Generally, linguists point to the works of Pu0101u1e47ini, 4th c.
BCE, as being the earliest, most comprehensive example of descriptive linguistics.
His grammar of Sanskrit (language), and in particular the morphological analysis (how meaningful word-parts are combined into rules, e.
, un + believe + able + y), was certainly one of the most precise grammars written up until relatively recently.
,,Stamp commemorating Pu0101u1e47inis contribution to religion, linguistics and Indian society.
Some very interesting Sanskrit and Indian grammarians predate and postdate him (i.
, he didnt work in a vacuum) and so while hes generally acknowledged as the most important linguist of antiquity, we shouldnt ignore the Pratisakhya (author unknown as far as I know), which deals with the phonetics of Sanskrit, and folks like u015au0101kau1e6du0101yana, who was writing about the relationship between nouns and verbs in a way that would be quite familiar to linguists working today - the earliest precursor of Derivational Morphology.
Thats about the limit of my own knowledge of the vast field of ancient Indian linguistics, but you can read more about Indias rich linguistic tradition here: Vyu0101karau1e47a, Kavirajamarga, Tolku0101ppiyamIn the Western tradition, you can look back to the Greeks for early writings on what would be more categorized as Semiotics, Philosophy of Language or Rhetoric today.
,Note that the term grammar comes from the Greek, grammatike techne art of letters, with gramma (letters) coming from graphein to write, or possibly even from to scrape (as on a tablet) (Online Etymology Dictionary).
So, your little trivia fact of the day is that grammar and graphic are etymologically related.
,Perhaps the earliest writings on grammar among the Greeks was Platos philosophizing on what it means to mean something and on where meaning comes from.
He discusses compound words and was generally accurate in noting that compositionality is the basic way that meanings was built up from parts, while also allowing for some degree of non-compositional convention (ice bucket vs.
,Also, formal logic continues to be a foundational aspect of syntactic and semantic grammar and theory, so Aristotles contributions are significant, here.
Furthermore, by codifying the structure of rhetorical arguments, and even theater, he was one of the first to apply the notion of grammatical structure beyond the word and sentence.
,,Aristotle, whose fascination with language lead to the introduction of concepts like homonyms and synonyms.
I would also like to make special mention of linguistic awareness in the Old Testament.
In Judges (written 6th c.
BCE, documenting events from before 10th c.
BCE), the ability to pronounce the word Shibboleth was used to distinguish Gileadites from Ephraimites, the latter pronouncing the word as Sibboleth.
This, too, is grammar in the sense of rules dictating the patterns of language.
Ephraim would certainly have been one of the first documented Sociolinguists.
Plato and Aristotle Comparison essay
u201cYou cannot step into the same river twiceu201d - Heraclitus .
,u201cNothing comes from Nothingu201d.
Existence always is - Parmenides While Heraclitus says that things are ever-changing and not the same at any moment, Parmenides holds that all things are same and eternal in essence.
,Many people consider these two philosophers to be polar opposites.
But perhaps they are not !,Heraclitus actually says that the river is the same precisely because the water is ever-flowing.
That is the essence of the river.
He upset people like Plato and Aristotle because he articulated u201cextreme unity of oppositesu201d.
,Normal minds cannot reconcile this idea.
They live with exclusion of opposites.
Black cannot have anything of White, and vice versa.
This is actually the mistake of Dualism.
Difference between Plato and Aristotle
Socrates spoke in his own name but didnu2019t write.
,Plato spoke but didnu2019t write in his own name.
,Aristotle spoke and wrote in his own name.
Similarities between Plato and Aristotle soul
Plato believed the soul and body were distinct entities.
,Aristotle believed they were not distinct.
A good analogy would be (I hope) Einsteins theory of Space/time.
We used to think space and time were distinct, but now due to Einstein, we believe they are two aspects of the same thing.
,Both, however, believed that the soul could exist independently of the body.
First, lets begin with the connection.
Plato was a student of Socrates, and Aristotle of Plato.
,We all know Socrates didnt leave any written work.
So, all that is attributed to him are based on Platou2019s works.
He uses Socrates as the major interlocutor in his dialogues.
Factually, Socrates may have been a fictional character, but lets not get into that, since history has confirmed him.
,On their philosophies, lets tie Socrates and Plato together.
We now know the story, so I would refer to both as Plato, as hes the one with published works, against Aristotle.
,Plato was an idealist.
In his Republic, for instance he tries to create an ideal form of societal government.
Not based on any realities, a phantasmagoria.
A system of government where it takes charge of every affair of its citizens; their feeding, vocations, marriages, even with raising of children.
Children are not going to be seen by their parents, but placed into the government care from birth, and it would deal with their needs and grooming.
He also rules out the idea of individual property, saying that no man should have more than neccessay for his subsistence.
He basically creates a structured system for the future generation.
,Aristotle, on the other hand, is a realist at heart.
He structures his government from previous constitutions, remedying their errors and creating his on realistic state.
He seems to be influenced by the laceadomonian and cretan constitutions.
Also, he notes the errors in Platou2019s Republic, and states their remedies, what has to be implemented, and what to forego.
As for example, as stated above, he sees that a society without individual property creates chaos.
Also, hes against placing kids from birth into the hands of government, noting the advantages of parental upbringing of children.
He basically creates a more realistic form of government that is practical.
,I know this is about the differences in general, I only used their forms of governments as a case study, and few points at that.
They have simulates, as Aristotle, being a student of Plato, but he corrects much of his teachers errors.
Aristotle system thus, similar, but abridged.
,Generally speaking, Plato was a sophist, in my opinion.
Yes, he has some good points, but how he gets to them is outrageous.
He uses analogies to compare everything.
In his Phaedo, where he talks about justice.
He gets really annoying at some point, when hes explaining the benefits of justice and virtue.
He uses so many comparisons that both protagonists and the antagonists get confused.
,Aristotle was more scientific in his reasonings compared to Plato.
He deduces his facts in a more analytical manner.
Not using endless comparisons.
S: personally, I would place Plato as the originator of communism, and Aristotle of Socialism.
As we have seen, communism was a failed idea.
Im sure Plato influenced Marx.