1. Describe Plato’s view on the Forms and Aristotle’s view on the forms. Which do you find more plausible? Why?
In this paper I will be discussing the view on the forms, of both Plato and Aristotle. For starts, Plato’s views on the Forms are basically describing the true meaning about material objects in the world. Like for example viewing a desk in a class room, should be looked at as more than just what we see, but thousands of atoms put together to make it look like a desk or something like that. His idea of an object was defined by what we might think something is it’s basically a form of something else. He said that we could be sitting on a chair but its quality is of an object which form is that of a chair. This idea of the form by Plato exists in a heavenly realm that could be understood by the mind. Plato’s views on the forms were aspects of everyday life, anything from a table to a bench As well as ideas and emotions. The essence of Plato's theory of Ideas Forms lay in the conscious recognition of the fact that there is a class of entities, in which the best name is probably universal, that are entirely different from sensible things, which is interesting. Plato's theory of Forms assumed that Forms are universal and exist as substances. On the other hand, Aristotle firmly disagrees with the idea of Forms being universal.
Aristotle sees universals as being the object of understanding things. Aristotle’s views on forms are more connected with the soul. He see the form as not being eternal, unchanging and outside of space. Like for instance the arrangement of matter, because matter is what things are made out of. His definition of the form determines the activities of objects, and what they do exactly. An example of his view on objects is that all things have a natural purpose, and was made to do exactly what it was made to do and nothing else. Aristotle was...