Moral standards, according to Aristotle, are an essential component of socialist ideology. The two factors determine what is advantageous to the community and the person. Individuals and connections, according to Aristotle, are identical, irrespective of whether the group is a clan or a household. He justifies this view by arguing that if the community is discordant, likewise will the person. Aristotle understood that every sentient creature had a purpose, similar to a cause for existence. However, if someone meets their capability, they will not live the best possible life. People have a more advanced life because they are logical experts, unlike plants and mammals.
Furthermore, if individuals have such a capacity or aptitude, people must use it. His perspective is more comprehensive than Plato’s, which is more philosophical and, at times, far-fetched. The core principle of Forms, according to Aristotle, is that they are intrinsic to each object, and each of its characteristics is attributed to its Form, which is a very tangible and succinct approach to understanding how a Formworks from within a thing, as it provides a direct cause-and-effect relationship (Aufderheide et al., 2015). He also offers four reasons to illustrate why something is the way it is: material, formal, efficient, and ultimate.
The reasons are concerned with how the Shapes differentiate amongst essential nature and sentient creatures, as well as with aim and transformation across history (Aufderheide et al., 2015). He then discusses what Aristotle’s Form hypothesis, wherein he affirms that such an entity’s character traits are just so mainly attributable to that entity’s “involvement” in its corresponding Forms, does not conclusively explain how a Form can describe a material’s shift over time if the Structure is indeed immutable, in which a folly in his opinion, amongst many other things.
Aristotle portrays Forms as something more substantial beyond “everything one could perceive, listen, or sense,” but also how understanding can be derived through the “system of sensations,” only opinions, and how knowledge can only be obtained by thinking and intelligence. The Shapes notions are far more complex than some of those presented by Aristotle and seem to be focused on the notion of a “quality of realism,” in which all entities, alive or inorganic, might “take part” in something that does not intrinsically reside beyond reality. Regardless and if Aristotle is correct, such statements undercut our popularly held understanding of what is real and what is not, making his reasoning more improbable than Aristotle’s theory, founded on empirical observation of something like the universe. Since his interpretations of both Forms are much more realistic and pragmatic. Since he also answers the logical inconsistencies that Plato presents in his understanding of the Forms, Aristotle offers the more plausible view of the Aspects (Aufderheide et al., 2015). His perspective is more comprehensive than Plato’s, which is more speculative and sometimes much further. The Form is fundamental to every item, according to Aristotle.
In terms of their perspectives on the soul, Aristotle once again triumphs in reasonableness since he can address what the soul is more holistically while also creating lesser intellectual losses than Plato. The much more significant difference between the two philosophies’ perspectives on the soul is that Plato considers the spirit and the body distinct, but Aristotle argues that they are not. Plato extends his thesis by claiming that souls are immortal and that each soul exists in a different place (Aufderheide et al., 2015). Spirits existed before being “incarcerated” inside a person but can continue after life ends and may exist independently of the torso.
Aristotle reaches a dead end while attempting to separate the soul from the body while contemplating the souls of plants and animals. Because he concentrated on the human psyche, he omitted to directly explain non-human minds, even though “perhaps not people are conscious,” a point that Aristotle addressed in his concept. According to Aristotle, the soul is the Form of the body, and hence it is implanted inside the skin (Aufderheide et al., 2015). He is not required to discuss the idea that the brain and body are “linked” by specific abstraction principles, as Plato did. He can account for all living things by mentioning variation amongst individuals, or “thresholds of mind.”
Happiness is not the same to Aristotle as it does to modern researchers. He, therefore, does not follow your pleasure as a sensation or a state of mind. He considers it a lifestyle choice, a way of life, or an activity. Irrespective matter if somebody’s existence and they might be joyous despite their pain and unhappiness. Eudemonia, meaning satisfaction, also denotes “doing the right thing.” Aristotle regards it as a reasonably constant, akin to the Hindu idea of karma: a never-ending endeavor to connect one’s acts with someone’s nature. Socrates thought honesty was enough to provide joy (Aufderheide et al., 2015). Plato learned a lot from Socrates, and he emphasizes virtue’s vital role in living a serene existence. Socrates’ reasoning is insufficient.
A person who is happy and content will not live in solitary amid poverty or disease. Virtue stands out among “external commerce” as the only one worth prioritizing over other things to be retained. Aristotle included several “sorts of production” in his definitions of architecture and medicine, as well as poetry and music when he discusses “creating.” In Greek, the term techne referred to any skillful art. Techne is the root of the English words science and technological (Aufderheide et al., 2015). Fabrication is a thorough representation of a well-coordinated purposeful quest.
Just what the highest happiness is, it will be within the scope of critical philosophy, the “based on the rationale discipline.” Aristotle may not simply refer to administrations and lawmakers; he also refers to how individuals interact with one another in a nationwide or country assemblage, a city, and a nuclear family. He is reverting to the crucial requirements of legislative concerns that are rooted in human behavior. He acknowledges the limitations of his approach. He must provide the most valuable blueprint imaginable. For instance, the “excellent,” the “right,” the greatest, and the best admirable thought or conduct will indeed be conditional to a somewhat extent (Aufderheide et al., 2015). Even though it is usually appropriate to take care of duty, there may be instances where doing so might cause more harm than good.
Although valiance is often associated with justice, he admits such bravery has resulted in the annihilation of particular persons. Aristotle observes the variations in human behavior. In any event, he adheres to some self-evident principles as logical criteria. A show or a spontaneous collective organization is not a sufficient argument for morality. As Aristotle concludes his exposition and begins his argument, he prefers to confront Plato’s viewpoint and the viewpoint of his disciples, who agree that “there is another thing that occurs because of its own making.” That excellent, according to Aristotle, would have to be adequate in actuality (Aufderheide et al., 2015). It cannot occur in humanity’s moods and actions outside the divine entities he outlines in subsequent portions.
Aristotle challenges Plato’s notion that excellence is a single asset. Merchandise, whether a resource, an activity, or a way of being, is just too diverse to be distilled into a single Form. A respectable person may pursue the pleasant feelings of other people at the expense of establishing fundamental ideas. Furthermore, the Form will not elucidate the value of anything other than itself. It will not aid people in discovering how they might live better lives. He emphasizes the first phase: an excellent reasonable foundation developed during infancy. He will elaborate on the importance of education. His theory of human good is neither democratic nor freely obtainable to everyone (Aufderheide et al., 2015). Goodness necessitates a combination of nurturing and nature’s sustenance.
In summation, I agree with Aristotle’s logic because he disagrees with the respected official Solon’s idea that no one should be regarded as happy until his death since circumstances change. Compassionate individuals, for example, are characterized as those who realize their aims, including assuring the state’s support for their children. However, people may die before realizing the impact of their child’s death. According to Aristotle, true pleasure may be influenced by circumstance, but it will not depend on it. The inner strength of joyful people is a crucial element. Individuals shall continue to engage in ethical actions even if terrible events occur throughout their daily lives.
Aufderheide, J., & Bader, R. M. (Eds.). (2015). The Highest Good in Aristotle and Kant. Mind Association Occasional. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7bO6BwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Aristotle%E2%80%99s+views+on+the+nature+of+the+highest+human+good+by+Aufderheide&ots=nJDvpfeQW-&sig=DcLc6abGYxFMv7wmJv5tniO35uI&redir_esc=y