Comparing Plato and Aristotle

In this course, we have spent extensive time learning about Plato and a little about Aristotle, two philosophers who have very different views. While Plato thinks knowledge of a highly abstract concept he termed the "Form of the Good" is necessary and sufficient for living a good life, Aristotle holds a much more practical, down-to-earth point of view, as thinks knowledge is helpful but is not necessary and sufficient for living a good life. After learning about each, I think that each theory has a solid foundation for living a good life if a person lived their life primarily according to the basis of that particular theory. However, I think both of these theories represent the extreme point of view; Plato believes in abstract theory and Aristotle in day-to-day practice. I think that an intermediate theory combining elements of both arguments would be most likely to result in the ideal life.

Plato has a well thought out theory which seems as though it will lead to a good life. However, to me it seems that, even though he claimed everyone has the capability of becoming a philosopher and leading a good life, in reality most people are not capable or willing to take time for such thought. After all, he did argue everyone was capable of philosophy and high abstract thought, but when I worked in carpentry and computers, I encountered individuals who I was quite certain did not have the capability to engage in deep abstract thought. They seemed concerned with concrete results and having things pinned down exactly to the point where they were simply unable to comprehend anything different, including abstract thought. To me, Plato seems like the stereotype intellectual who, despite the fact that he is a magnificently intelligent individual, is incapable of making his ideas actually work in day-to-day life. It was even stated in class that he tried to help design the ideal city in real life, but failed. He also admits in his own writing that the ideal city may not be possible to create. If ideas can only exist in the abstract and not in the physical, how useful are they?

The main problem I have with studying the Form of the Good and ways to find it, is that Plato suggests to throw out any ideas of practicality. The idea was brought up in class that a baseball player should go sit in a classroom and study physics in order to be a better baseball player. This idea is not grounded in reality into how things really work. Everyone knows that if a baseball player studies physics all the time, he will not have the time to take steroids or weight lift and his muscles and coordination will deteriorate so that he is not strong enough to compete with players who are actually practicing baseball and weightlifting. As an avid pursuer of athletics myself, I can also say that one loses his feel for the game as he is out of practice with it. What I mean is that, if I do not practice a sport the exact same way as I play it when competing with others, I appear rusty when I finally do play it with others. For example, I have read books and papers about how to shoot better in basketball, and that has helped a little, but when I pick up the ball after not shooting for a week or so, the ball feels much different and I do not make as many shots as when I am practicing consistently. Hypothetically, let us say I could take a class on shooting a basketball for a semester at college. Assuming I did not practice actually shooting the ball, but only studied about it for the entire semester, I know that when I first pick up the ball at the end of a semester, it will feel quite awkward. The theory in the class will help me a little when I am actually practicing, but only after I have actually practiced for a while will the theory help. I also will have to think about how to shoot the ball because I have not actually shot it for so long a time. The best athletes never have to think; through consistent practice they learn to react. Nike says it best when it says to "just do it." Living a life totally dedicated to theory is helpful, but not the best life. This example can also be applied to Socrates himself. He was the wisest man of his time, possibly of all time. However, he lived a life of poverty as a bum. If he did not have friends who would take him in and feed him and possibly give him new clothes once in a while, he would starve and die. How helpful is studying wisdom all the time if one cannot meet his basic practical needs?

In contrast to Plato, Aristotle is much more concrete and practical. I think he is correct when he says that knowledge itself is not sufficient for living a good life. There was a freshman in my high school who had far greater knowledge than everyone else; he was in the senior courses that year. However, he was completely incapable of applying his knowledge in real life. He was unable to get his homework done on time and consistently received D's and F's, while I, who had lesser knowledge, did complete my homework on time and consistently received A's in the exact same material. This person had much more knowledge than I, but was not able to apply it in real life, and therefore it did him no good. Knowledge itself is useless without practical implementation. I do disagree with Aristotle, however, in the respect that knowledge of goodness is not necessary for a good life. Look at the same person noted before who had so much knowledge. If he would have had even just a little knowledge of a good life, namely to be responsible, he would have received much better grades and quite possibly could have gone to a very highly respected college, but he did not have knowledge of a good life, and as far as I know now he lives in poverty in a dumpy town. Knowledge, while not sufficient in itself, is still necessary for a good life. I think Plato exaggerates the amount of knowledge needed, but that some amount, which every person can find, will allow us to lead a good life. Personally, I think more knowledge than what Aristotle implies is necessary. Further, I believe that the more knowledge of a good life a person has, the better of a life he will be able to lead.

Neither Plato's nor Aristotle's ideas are completely useless. I think they might serve as a good starting point or as a worthwhile supplement to whatever one is pursuing. To me, knowledge needs application, and application needs knowledge; it does not matter which one comes first, as both must be experienced in order to have the best chance at leading a good life. I do agree with Plato's notion that using human reason will help us to attain the best life. He places those who chase honor as living the second best life, and those who chase the appetites living the third best life. I think Plato and Aristotle are both mistaken on how to get there, as only when knowledge is used with action is it actually useful.

Let us go back to the example of the baseball player. I showed that studying physics all the time would actually lead to the degradation of his baseball skill. Theory could still be beneficial to a baseball player, however. There is a certain ideal way to swing the bat in order to attain the greatest power, and the theoretical knowledge of this swing would benefit that baseball player. A player could, if he wanted, swing the bat using only one arm. However, he will not get as much power and hit as many home runs as he would with two arms. Professional baseball players can actually use video equipment to analyze their swings, and professional analyzers can pinpoint the minute inefficiencies of a player's swing. It is these analyzers who know the theory of the ideal way to swing the bat; however, they are not skilled enough at baseball, nor do they practice it often enough to actually make a living at it. Instead, they provide knowledge of this theory to a player, and through practice he will come to learn that the closer he comes to reaching the theoretical ideal swing, the more powerful he will be. Players who spend all their time studying the swing without actually practicing it will have less developed muscles, and players who spend all their time practicing a swing without knowing the best way to swing the bat may eventually come to know the best way, but it will be quickest and easiest if they learn from someone who already does know.

This then is my theory of how to live a good life: a good life requires both abstract knowledge and practical application. It does not matter which one comes first, as each can only be understood when the other is performed, and both must be performed extensively. I could learn how to swing the baseball bat ideally from a book, but I would not actually understand it until I physically swung the bat many times. Conversely, if I first swung the bat many times but had no theoretical knowledge imparted by a book or person, I would still not reach the ideal swing until a coach or book helped me to understand the ideal for which I should strive. Once I understood the theory and practiced the swing many times, noticing that I now have a much more powerful swing than ever before, I would have attained understanding of both the theory and the act. From this demonstration, it is clear that knowing both the theory and practicing the act is the ideal way to attain the best swing. Further, if I continued to learn about swinging a baseball bat over my entire lifetime, I may, with my continually accumulating knowledge, discover a way to swing the bat that is better than anyone has ever found before.

This baseball example can then be extended to how to live a good life: a good life requires both knowledge of a theory of what is good and practical experience with what is good, so that we can be sure something really is good. While the idea of discovering a completely new way to swing a baseball bat that is not yet discovered is a bit of a stretch, it would not be unreasonable to believe there is a completely new way to live life that is better than any before. After all, there are nearly infinite possibilities, and we seem to learn new things all the time, to this idea of an undiscovered ideal lifestyle is quite realistic. Also, I noted earlier that I believed Plato's ranking of the kinds of life to be accurate: the best life is one ruled by reason, but I would modify that to include practical experience and application, and that these inevitably result in happiness, the best life for Aristotle; the second best life is for a person who chases fame; the third best life is where one chases the appetites such as sex and money.

How do I know that a good life involves theoretical knowledge and daily practice? For myself, I have experienced all three of the lifestyles Plato mentioned, and while I always heard from my religion, parents, and all sorts of other people that leading a life chasing money or alcohol or any of the other appetites is not the best life, I never really understood or cared for that viewpoint until I actually experienced those types of lifestyles. I, like many people, originally was working in computers where I knew I could make a lot of money, which was my primary motivator. To make a long story short, I was stressed and burned out most of the time and never really happy. Eventually, I lucked into a job working with autistic children and still am happy working that job two-and-a-half years later, something I believed to be impossible. Even though I had theoretical knowledge of a good life, I still pursued money. Once I attained the requisite practical experience, and combined that with the theoretical framework from my religion, Plato, and many other people, I know in fact chasing money is not the best life. I have experimented with many other of the appetites including alcohol, drugs, and sex, to name a few, and have found the same result in the same way.

While Plato considers chasing fame or honor to be the second best life, I consider it to be much like the appetites. Humans chase fame because along with it comes money, power, and political privilege, and perhaps a certain stance above the law. I cannot say that I have national fame, but I enjoy a high degree of notoriety among my groups of friends; it is very clear I am the alpha of the pack. However, I would not say that it is the best life. Sure, it is nice to have everyone look up to me and to be able to push people's opinions in a certain direction, but it is not the best life.

The best life is one ruled by reason, which is gained through abstract knowledge and experience. For example, one time I found somebody's wedding band in the YMCA locker room. Very few people were around, and it would have been very easy to keep the ring for myself. I could have taken it home with me, drove to a pawn shop, gotten a few bucks for it, and it is pretty reasonable to conclude I could easily have gotten away with it without anyone ever knowing except for myself. But, with my experience of what is and is not a good life, and also with the theoretical framework provided, I have come to the understanding that taking things which are not mine is wrong, even if I can get away with it. I returned the ring to the front desk at the YMCA, and although the real owner probably never saw it and I did not receive any praise or money for returning it, I felt good knowing that I had done the right thing. This is one example of leading the best life, and I always try to find other ways to live the best life.

Finally, I have much experience in living what I know to be a good life because I have lived some ways that are not a good life. I have learned from many sources about what a good life is, the theoretical framework, and I have knowledge of what things do not make for a good life from experience, as previously demonstrated. Combining all these factors together means that I have understanding of what a good life is. Do I have experience with all the ways that are not a good life? No. I have never tried to murder anybody, but based on my experience and theoretical knowledge of what is and is not good, I can reasonably deduce that murdering people is not a good lifestyle, and I can extend this example to many other areas, down to the minutest detail.

From these examples, I think I have demonstrated that knowledge of goodness is necessary, but not to the extent Plato claims. Like Aristotle says, knowledge is not sufficient in itself, but I believe it is necessary. So in sum, knowledge with application is the best way to live a good life.