Aristotle’s Critique of Plato: Hylomorphism and Political Theory
Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Ideas: Hylomorphism
Aristotle’s realism stands in contrast to Platonic idealism.
While both philosophers agreed that reality can be known, unlike the Sophists, their explanations differed. Plato explained reality based on two worlds: the sensible world and the intelligible world. Aristotle, however, divides reality into primary substance (what we perceive through the senses), secondary substance (the concept we have of everything), and accidents (the characteristics of things).
A key difference is that Plato believed the intelligible world exists independently of the sensible world. Aristotle argued that the primary substance is the foundation of everything else. He proposed that the primary substance is real and that the difference between the two substances is a mental distinction, arguing that Plato’s intelligible world was, for Plato, the true reality.
Furthermore, Aristotle believed that matter (hyle), the stuff things are made of, and form (morphe), what makes each thing what it is, form an inseparable unity. Plato, on the other hand, placed matter in the sensible world and form in the intelligible world of ideas.
Finally, they differed in their explanations of change. Plato attributed change to the immutable world of Ideas influencing the changing world. Aristotle explained it through act (what everything is) and potentiality (what everything may become), suggesting that external causes enable people to achieve their potential.
Aristotle criticized Plato for making the explanation of reality unnecessarily complex by creating two separate worlds.
Political Theory: Sociability and Conventionality of Law
Aristotle, like Plato, discusses the state, but they have several differences in their explanations.
Both philosophers agreed that humans are social beings and need society to develop and perfect themselves. However, Aristotle considered the family essential and the first social organization, unlike Plato, who saw it as an obstacle.
They also agreed that a just state seeks the common good, not necessarily a republic. They disagreed on who should govern. Plato believed the most meritorious, i.e., philosophers, should govern, while Aristotle thought the middle class, with enough possessions to pursue political tasks, should rule. They also differed on property; Plato believed only producers should lack private property.
Another difference was how they secured justice. For Plato, it was solely through knowledge. Aristotle believed that, in addition to knowledge, reaching the midpoint is necessary for the virtue of prudence. Acting virtuously requires consistently choosing the middle ground to gain experience.
Finally, for Plato, justice is achieved when all citizens act virtuously according to their function. Aristotle associated justice with law, requiring each citizen to fulfill its dictates, and merit, giving each person what they deserve.
Aristotle argued that the best government is the one that endures over time, indicating it has avoided extreme positions.