FREE ESSAY ON EPISTEMOLOGY - PLATO VS ARISTOTLE

EPISTEMOLOGY - PLATO VS ARISTOTLE

Epistemology
Plato vs. Aristotle
In Republic, Plato defines the ideal government to be one that is set up and run by a
philosopher king. This person, having a completely just soul, would be able to organize
and run a government that was also completely just. Aristotle also believes that this
monarchy run by the perfect ruler that Plato describes would be ideal, if it were
possible. However, Aristotle doesn't believe that a perfectly just person exists. On page
81 of The Politics Aristotle says that "if" such a perfectly just person did exist he
would be a "God among men", and there are no gods among men. So, Aristotle discounts the
possibility of the existence of such a form of government, and moves on to government
systems that he believes could realistically exist.
We can trace this disagreement between Aristotle and Plato to a difference in
epistemological views (i.e. theories of knowledge). Plato can imagine pure justice, and
can imagine man who is purely just. It isn't relevant to Plato whether he has ever met
such a man; he just assumes that since he can imagine such a man, it must be possible for
such a man to exist. Plato uses the allegory of the cave to illustrate his
epistemological view. 
In book VII of the Republic Plato describes a cave where people are chained up and can
only see shadows cast on a wall. He parallels these shadows to the things that people see
in the world around them, the materialistic reality that most people base their lives on.
He parallels the chains to norms, customs, traditions, habits, etc. Plato believes that
because people are so preoccupied with these shadows of the truth, they ignore the real
truth. So, it makes sense that Plato wouldn't want to discount the possibility of a
philosopher king based on the fact that he has never seen one, because it could be the
"shadows" fooling him into believing that no such man exists.
Aristotle, on the other hand, bases his beliefs on what he can see, and what has been
proven. He has never seen a man that is purely just, and he can see no example of such a
man in history, so he discounts the possibility of the existence of a purely just man. 
This example of the differences in Plato an Aristotle's different views on government
could be expanded and clarified to a much greater extent than I have done here, however I
don't believe that it would help to show which epistemology is better (which is the
purpose of this paper). In order to decide which epistemology is better it is necessary
to use an example that has proven one or the other superior. Comparing their theories of
government would make this task difficult, if not impossible, because such a comparison
is so complex. So I would like to move on to an example of their different
epistemological views that has been historically tested, the issue of women.
In Greek civilization, women are seen to be inferior to men. They don't vote, or hold
political office. In the household, the man is in charge, and the woman obeys. Women
aren't educated (so they seem stupider than men do), and they are obviously weaker
physically than men are. Both Plato and Aristotle live in this civilization where women
seem to be unequal to men, but they have different opinions about the significance of
this inequality.
Aristotle believes that women are inferior to men by nature (Politics 17, 26). Men hold
political offices, and women don't; men give orders, and women obey. This has been true
in every civilization that Aristotle knows about. Aristotle looks at these facts in the
world around him, past and present, and uses the facts that he sees to explain reality.
In Aristotle's opinion women are obviously not inclined by nature to rule or be educated,
because he can look around and see that they don't do these things. He bases his beliefs
on tangible, provable evidence.
Plato, on the other hand, disregards the fact that women seem to be inferior to men. He
can imagine a woman that is worthy of ruling or being educated, and doesn't care that he
can find no example of such a woman. He would argue that the reason he can find no
example is that the "chains" of custom prevent such a woman from existing. He doesn't
allow himself to be fooled by the "shadows" of inferior women that he sees in his
society. In Republic, he argues that women should be treated as men's equals, despite the
fact that this idea seems very far-fetched in his time. (Republic, 126)
In post-woman's movement America, it seems apparent that Plato was more accurate in his
assessment of women's capabilities. We can, in America, find many examples of women that
are capable of ruling and being educated. A similar example to this can be seen in
America's abolition of slavery. Women and black people hold political office, vote, and
go to school with white males. This system seems to work well, and it is now apparent
that women and black people are just as able as white men are.
If everyone in America had thought about the world like Aristotle (i.e. used Aristotle's
epistemology), it would have been impossible for the women's movement or the abolition of
slavery to take place. Nobody would have thought it possible or prudent for women and
black people to go to school with white men, or vote, or hold public office, etc.,
because it had never been done before. We can see now that it is possible. 
During slavery in the Unites States, southern white slave owners lived by Aristotle's
epistemological method. Since childhood, they had been raised to believe that blacks were
inferior, and they believed it. Plato would say that the chains of society had forced
these people to believe in this "shadow" of black inferiority. They looked around them,
and saw all of their competition using slaves. It was hard to imagine life any other way,
and for them, there was no reason to imagine life any other way. In their minds blacks
were inferior, what would possess anyone to think that they should roam free? 
It could be argued that the Yankees (people from the northern U.S.) used Plato's
epistemology. They broke free from the "chains" holding them to the belief that blacks
are inferior. The reason that they were able to do this might be that their "chains"
weren't as strong as those of the southerners. The Yankees weren't totally immersed in
the slave culture, which made it easier for them to look beyond the "shadows" to the real
truth. This conflict between the epistemological methods of the north and the south
arguably caused the civil war. 
If everyone (in the north and the south) held a similar epistemological view (either
Plato's or Aristotle's) then the civil war wouldn't have taken place. It seems possible
that this could happen if nobody broke free from his "chains" to conceive of a new idea.
In this case, everyone would hold a view based on Aristotle's epistemology, and there
would be no conflict. It seems impossible, however, for everyone to hold a view based on
a Platonic epistemology. There will always be people who gain in some way from a current
situation, or, because of habituation, simply can't break from their "chains" to see past
the "shadows". 
It seems then, that one problem with Plato's epistemology is that change can't be clean
or easy. This can be seen in the struggle that our country has gone through both with the
women's movement and the abolition of slavery. The civil war resulted in an estimated
620,000 deaths. If we had lived by Aristotle's epistemology, 620,000 men wouldn't have
died, but we would still have slavery. The question we must ask ourselves then, is if the
change is worth the trouble.
In the case of slavery and the women's movement, it seems to have been worth the trouble.
These ideas worked (or at least are well on their way to working), and seem to make a
better society. However, I think there are examples in history where an idea didn't work
or didn't create a benefit that out-weighed the struggle. General Motors's so called
side-saddle gas tanks are an example of an idea that didn't work.
GM installed "side-saddle" gas tanks on pickup trucks from 1973 to 1989. These tanks have
killed more than 700 people in explosions. If Aristotle had designed the trucks, he
probably wouldn't have moved the gas tanks. He would say that gas tanks shouldn't go on
the side; they aren't on the side now and have never been on the side, it is obvious that
the side isn't the place for gas tanks. If Aristotle designed the gas tanks, it would
have saved over 700 lives. The people who designed the gas tanks used a platonic
epistemological method. They decided to try something new and unproven, they moved the
gas tanks. KABOOM!!!, 700 deaths.
Although this example might seem superficial, I think it proves my point. Change isn't
safe; change is risky. Not only are people resistant to change (which in extreme cases,
like slavery, could cause war), but change isn't proven. It might not produce the desired
outcome. At the same time, without change, humanity can't evolve. Without imagination and
willingness to try new things, humanity would still be living in caves pounding rocks
together. This brings me to an interesting point; it seems that Plato's epistemology may
be necessary for scientific innovation, but what about Aristotle's epistemology?
In order for human knowledge of science to evolve, it seems necessary to "think outside
of the box". It seems necessary to ignore conventional beliefs, so that new ideas can be
conceived of. However, since science and innovation build on the study of the world
around us, it also seems necessary to examine the world around us (i.e. use Aristotelian
epistemology). It seems then that the epistemological views of Plato and Aristotle are
both necessary for scientific innovation. If we ignore what is tangible and visible, and
if we ignore proven facts, science can't exist. If we refuse to think outside of the box,
science can't evolve. At the same time, both epistemological methods seem to conflict
with science. 
Using Plato's epistemological method, all that is physical is nothing more than a shadow
of the truth. This means that it is pointless to examine and test physical things in a
search for truth, because truth can't be found in these "shadows". However, the study of
physical interactions between tangible, material things, is essential to science because
those interactions are the basis of scientific knowledge. In addition, because science
builds on previous discoveries, it is necessary in science to rely on historical
evidence. So, although by using Plato's epistemology, imaginative new scientific
discoveries could be made, there would be no previous basis to build on in making these
discoveries, and any discoveries that were made would deal with irrelevant "shadows"
shadows of reality anyway.
Using Aristotle's epistemological method also seems to conflict with scientific
discovery. Aristotle would look at the scientific knowledge that already exists, and
believe that it is true, preventing new discoveries from being made. There would be no
point in "thinking outside of the box" because the way things are, is the way things are.

If Christopher Columbus thought like Aristotle, he never would have discovered America.
After asking the educated people of the time, he would have discovered that everyone
agreed that the world was flat. At the time, the earth's flatness was considered
scientific fact; there was no reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, using Aristotle's
epistemology, Columbus would have concluded that the world was flat and stopped there. If
Columbus had used Plato's epistemology, he might have wondered would happen if he sailed
straight out into the ocean. However, he would surely get lost at sea if he tried to find
out. If he used Plato's epistemology he wouldn't trust the stars as a guide, he would no
nothing about winds or currents, he wouldn't even know how to work a sail. All of these
things are based on tangible evidence and past experience, which according to Plato are
nothing more than shallow "shadows" of the truth, and should be discounted. If Columbus
used a platonic epistemology, all he could have done was sit around and wonder what was
across the ocean.
It seems then, that the best epistemology for science, must fall somewhere between that
of Aristotle and Plato. A good scientist needs to acknowledge the facts, but be open to
new ideas and beware of the "chains" of custom and habit. This also seems to hold true in
other matters, such as slavery, women, and automobile design. The best epistemology to
live by isn't the epistemology of Plato, or that of Aristotle, it is a combination of the
two. A person needs to acknowledge the world around him, but be wary of the "chains" of
custom. He needs to be open to new ideas, but keep in mind the hardships that may come
with change. He should acknowledge that things might not always be as they seem, but not
lose sight of reality. He should be an Aristotelian-Platonist.