Narrow-minded philosophy?

Question

Does anyone else disregard the assumption/theorem/concept that everyone on Earth is either an Aristolian or a Platonist? If so, why or why not..? I can't be the only one who knows who these people are, what they stood for, and what their differences were.

Answer 1

Unless coupled with experience & awareness, atleast to some extent, philosophy means nothing..... even a parrot can repeat philosophies.

Answer 2

It is a false dilemma that everyone is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. First because there are many theses that one can hold that neiter Plato nor Aristotle did. Secondly because there are different senses in which one may construe themslves as an Aristotelian, a Platonist, or both. First, both Aristotle and Plato are realists, both metaphysicaly and ethically. Metaphysical Realism is the view that (1) there are objects in the world and that (2) these object exist independantly of our knowledge, or beliefs, or experience of them, and that (3) these objects possess properties who relations obtain independtly of the concepts we employ to understand them. If I am an anti-realist, then I reject one or more of the above realist theses. That would sqaurely make me NOT a Platonist or an Aristotelian regarding metaphysics. A moral realist holds that there are moral properties in the world (perhaps natural, perhaps non-natural) whose existence obtains independantly of our beliefs, knowledge, or experiences. If I am, say, an emotivist, then I am not an Aristotelian nor am I a Platonist, for the simple fact that I do not think moral discourse is semanticaly meaningful in the first place, because there are no verification conditions by which I may determine that indeed these so-called moral proprties exist. Thus, I think moral discourse does not predicate properties of objects or persons, rather moral discourse serves to express one's emotions and nothing else. An emotivist is neither a Platonist nor an Aristotelian.

Now, you may be a Platonist about some things, and an Aristotelian about others. There are numerous examples of ths throuhout the history of philosophy, and even up to today's philosophy professors. Frege is something of a platonist regarding metaphysics, but not much else. Many philosophers admire Aristotle's ethical theory without adopting other aspects of his philosophy. But does that make Frege a Platonist, or someone an Aristotelian because they attempt to apply Aristotle's ethics? Hardly seems like enough.

A Thomist (one who roughly implements the theories of thomas Aquinas), is influenced by Aristotle because Aquinas was highly influenced by Aristotle, but no Thomist will call himself an Aristotelian in total. Likewise for an Augustinian with Plato.

But if someone were to claim that everyone, despite what they believe, is just an Aristotleian or a Platonist, I'd love to have them show me how, say, Kant is one or the other, or how Hegel is one or the other, or G.E. Moore, or David Lewis, or Hilary Putnam, and so on. To suggest that everyone is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian displays a complete lack of understanding of both Plato and Aristotle, as well as the history of philosophy.

In short, one may be not a Platonist or an Aristotelian at all, or they may be one in some specific category but all.

And, by the way, contrary to some people's answer, both Plato, and especially Aristotle, utilized methods that laid the foundation for what would be called the scientific method (among a number of other foundations of thought and practice). To suggest otherwise, again, demonstrates ignorance of the history of ideas and empirical practice.

Besides, who the says this? I've never met anyone who ever thought everyone was either a platonist or an Aristotelian, and I move in many philosophical circles.

Answer 3

I believe everyone has the potential for the thirst for knowledge that these men had. Their school of thought greatly influenced the Western world, but their methods developed independantly in the Far East and the Americas. People who ask "why" will typically come to the same conclusions and use similar methods.

Some say they are one and the same, others say they are vastly different.

I tend to believe they are extensions of each other. Both felt that 'dialectics' were the way to go when confronted with an issue of science.

Aristotle;
A student of Plato; some say he took Platos thoughts and expanded upon them, other say he completed them.

Aristotle defines his philosophy in terms of essence, saying that philosophy is "the science of the universal essence of that which is actual". Aristotle concentrated on finding meaning in actual things and then finding the relationships from those to other things.

Plato;
Student of Socrates and founder of the "academy" where Aristotle and many other philosophers attended.

Plato defined his philosphy as the "science of the idea", meaning by idea what we should call the unconditional basis of phenomena. Plate concentrated on what he called "Exemplars" and belived the universe to be separate and apart from these from time to time.

Answer 4

Of course they are from a narrow viewpoint. These ideas are ancient as far as the study of philosophy goes. Their theories were more the start of mankind's understanding of reason, and the delving into of philosophy to begin with. They helped shaped how we approach science today, and both their theories add to the understanding we are trying to achieve. But people are by no means restricted to either of the two viewpoints. After all, they were but men themselves.

Answer 5

I love Aristotle the only thing I know about Plato is that he wrote The Republic, for some reason when I read Aristotle's, he seems to speak to my heart and mind, I read Plato, I don't understand him or what he is trying to say.

Answer 6

of course we know what your talking about and yes i disregard it. to have a sound mind for philosophy you must be flexable enough to accept certen aspects of many diffrent ideas.

Answer 7

Niether one of the subscibed to the scientific method. So where does that place the scientist?

Answer 8

Yes, I disregard that very much