in what important ways was Aristotle different from Plato英文回答,200字左右

in what important ways was Aristotle different from Plato英文回答,200字左右
in what important ways was Aristotle different from Plato
英文回答,
200字左右

in what important ways was Aristotle different from Plato英文回答,200字左右
The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle differ on many issues. One of the most important things to examine are their differing views on ethical theory. One can find many points of conflict between the ethical theories of Plato and Aristotle. However, one of the most important points are their differing views on the human function (ergon) and its role in ethics. We will examine two different arguments regarding the human function and compare the different goals of each.
One of the most interesting contrasts between the ethical beliefs of Plato and Aristotle rests in their arguments on the human function. Towards the end of Book One of The Republic, Socrates is trying to prove to Thrasymachus that it is better to be just than unjust. He begins by establishing that everything has its own specific function, and that that function is “that which one can do only with it or best with it (Republic I 352e).” For example, the function of eyes is to see, and since a pruning knife is better suited to pruning than a butcher’s knife, its function is to prune. Having established this, Socrates goes on to argue that everything also has a virtue that relates to the performance of its function. The virtue of eyes would be sight and the virtue of the pruning knife would be its sharpness. An object that is deficient in its virtue is said to be incapable of performing its function well (a dull knife would not be able to cut properly). Having shown this, Socrates turns his attention to the human soul and its function. “Is there some function of a soul that you couldn’t perform with anything else, for example, taking care of things, ruling, deliberating, and the like? Is there anything other than a soul to which you could rightly assign these, and say that they are its peculiar function? ...What of living? Isn’t that a function of the soul? (Republic I 353d)” Thrasymachus agrees to Socrates’ definition of the soul’s function and they go on to examine what the virtue of the soul is, that allows it to perform its function. From his previous argument regarding the importance of virtue in the performance of one’s function, Socrates extrapolates that a non-virtuous soul would do a poor job of ruling, deliberating, living…etc, while a virtuous one would do all of these things admirably. Socrates then references a previous point in the discussion, when he and Thrasymachus had established that justice was the virtue of the soul, and injustice its vice. This allows Socrates to conclude that a just soul and a just man will live well and be happy, while an unjust man will not live well and be unhappy.
The argument that Plato has put forth has one major flaw that is important to examine. When Socrates references his previous conclusion that justice is the virtue of the soul, it is unclear when such a conclusion was soundly argued for. Irwin comments on this problem “It is less clear, however, that Socrates is entitled to assume that justice is the human virtue. Although he has refuted Thrasymachus’ claim that injustice is a virtue, he has not thereby proved that justice is a virtue. (Irwin P.179)” The refutation that Irwin is speaking of are two different arguments that Socrates presented to show that injustice is not the virtue of the soul. The first was when Thrasymachus stated that an unjust person would always be overreaching and trying to best his peers. Socrates responded by showing that this overreaching is not actually a good thing and would be a foolish way to live. The second argument is when Socrates demonstrates that injustice causes internal tension and strife that would be detrimental to the person. Thrasymachus believes that an unjust person would always choose injustice over justice. To this, Socrates responds by asking “Do you think that a city, an army, a band of robbers or thieves, or any other tribe with a common unjust purpose would be able to achieve it if they were unjust to each other? (Republic I 351c)” Thrasymachus agrees that injustice creates conditions under which it is impossible for people to work together. Socrates then applies this conclusion to the soul, stating that injustice prevents the different areas of the soul from working together and thus prevents them from working toward a common goal. Although these two arguments soundly refute Thrasymachus’ claim that injustice is the human virtue, they do not prove that justice is the soul’s virtue.
In the opening chapters of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle examines various types of good ends and concludes that happiness is the ultimate good to pursue. In chapter seven of Book I, Aristotle tackles the role of the human function in the pursuit of happiness/goodness. He first establishes that the good for anything that has a function rests in the performance of that function. Next, Aristotle tries to figure out whether there is a specific function for all human beings, or if a person’s function is only related to his role in society. “Then do the carpenter and the leatherworker have their functions and actions, while a human being has none, and is by nature idle, without any function? Or, just as eye, hand, foot and, in general, every part apparently has its functions, may we likewise ascribe to a human being some function besides all theirs? (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 29-33)” Believing that there is some function that is applicable only to humans, Aristotle attempts to figure out what this function is. First, he excludes the process of growth and nutrition, as neither are applicable only to humans. He also excludes what he calls the life of sense-perception, as this is also not solely a human trait. He finally concludes that the human function is to utilize the part of the soul that exhibits reason. Following this, he puts forth a set of arguments that connect the human function of utilizing reason, to the concept of the ultimate good end. Aristotle establishes that the function of any F is the same as the function of an exceptional F. The only difference is that the exceptional F is expected to do its job well. Combining this point with his idea that the human function is that which expresses reason, Aristotle shows that the excellent man’s function is to express reason in an excellent manner. Aristotle’s next step is to proclaim that all functions will be completed well when they are done in a way that displays the corresponding virtue (ex. The harpists function is said to be completed well when the playing of the harp expresses excellence). He then takes his last three points and reaches his conclusion. “Therefore, by d, e and f, the human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 1098a 10-17)” For Aristotle, the “human good” seems to be synonymous with the attainment of happiness. Thus, in order for a human being to be happy, he or she must live a life that successfully expresses reason.
The major differences that can be seen between these two arguments are seen when we examine the goals of both Plato and Aristotle. Plato has two main goals behind his argument, the first is to refute the position that injustice is better than justice. Secondly, his human function argument helps to set up the idea of his model cities, in which each person has a function and the city is virtuous when everyone performs their own function. Aristotle is examining happiness as the ultimate end and is searching for ways to get to that end. Thus, by proving that this good is found in the expression of reason, Aristotle is able to prescribe a path to happiness. If one fulfills one’s function, expression of reason, and does so in an excellent manner, one will necessarily attain happiness.
Another way in which the two arguments differ is on their actual conceptualization of what the human function is. For Plato, the human function is defined as deliberation, ruling, living and taking care of things. This differs greatly from Aristotle idea of the human function which is, to perform activities that express reason. Not only are these two definitions very different, but they illustrate the chasm between the ways that each philosopher is thinking of the concept of a human function. Plato thinks of it in terms of the person’s place in society. His ideas of ruling, deliberating…etc pertain to the community in which one lives, and one’s relation to it. Aristotle approaches the problem from a much more individualistic point of view. Expressing reason in one’s action does not have anything to do with a relationship with other people or a community, but relates only to the individual.
In conclusion, the biggest difference between Plato’s argument and Aristotle’s is their conceptualization of the concept of the human function. Also, their goals are vastly different. Plato uses his argument to refute those who would argue that injustice is beneficial and to set up his model city, in which virtue for the city is derived from each person fulfilling their function. Aristotle, on the other hand, uses his argument to directly set up a method for achieving the ultimate good.

问题意思是:在哪些重要途径,是亚里士多德不同于柏拉图?
答案:
亚里士多德
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
公元前320多上前的雅典城郊外，常常可以看到一位60多岁的老人，身边跟随着十多位青年，他们或是在树林中逍遥自在地漫步交谈，或...

全部展开

问题意思是:在哪些重要途径,是亚里士多德不同于柏拉图?
答案:
亚里士多德
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
公元前320多上前的雅典城郊外，常常可以看到一位60多岁的老人，身边跟随着十多位青年，他们或是在树林中逍遥自在地漫步交谈，或是坐在山谷溪旁的大石块上，热烈地讨论着。
“老师，您再讲讲‘三段论’大前提、小前提、结论……”
老人捋了捋胡须，缓缓地说到：“我们希腊人有个很有趣的谚语：如果你的钱包在你的口袋里，而你的钱又在你的钱包里，那么，你的钱肯定在你的口袋里，这不正是一个非常完整的‘三段论’吗”……
雅典人都知道，那是亚里士多德正在给他吕克昂学园高级班的学生上课呢。
亚里士多德的父亲是马其顿王国的宫廷医生。亚里士多德17岁起，就被父亲送到当时著名的柏拉图学园，在那里他学习了20年。由于他勤奋刻苦，涉猎广泛，很受老师柏拉图看重。可是，柏拉图又说：“要给亚里士多德戴上缰绳。”意思说，亚里士多德非常聪明，思想敏捷，不同于一般人；不加以管教，就不能成为柏拉图期望的人。亚里士多德很尊敬他的老师，但是，在很多问题上，他又有着自己独立的思考和见解。他曾说过这样一句话：“我爱我的老师，但是我更爱真理。”
在学园里，亚里士多德经常和柏拉图争论，有时候，会把老师问得答不上来。他不同意柏拉图把真实存在看成是“人的理念”的唯心观点。他提出这样的问题：树就是树，由种子长成，结出果实。离开实实在在的树，仅仅是头脑中的树的概念又有什么意义呢？后来，亚里士多德终于抛弃了柏拉图的许多唯心论观点。他认为，客观存在的物质世界是永恒的，不是靠什么观念产生的。是先有了现实生活中的各种三角形状的东西，然后在人们头脑中才有三角形的观念。代数和几何的定律是从自然现象中抽象出来的。他还认为，生命和世界都在运动，没有运动就没有时间、空间和物质。这些都具有一定的辩证法观点。但是，亚里士多德碰到一些解释不了的现象，还是要把老师的一些唯心论的观点搬出来帮忙，常常弄得自相矛盾，在唯物论和唯心论这两种观点中摇来摆去。
柏拉图死后，亚里士多德离开学园。从公元前343年起，他给当时的马其顿王国王太子亚历山大当老师。亚历山大继承王位后，亚里士多德来到雅典办学。
他首先提出了对青年学生必须进行“智育、德育、体育”三方面的教育，并且提出了划分年级的学制。他主张，对于7岁到14岁的儿童，国家应该为他们办小学，让他们学习体操、语文、算术、图画和唱歌。对于14岁到21岁的青少年，国家应该为他们办中学，教他们历史、数学和哲学。体育是为培养强健的体魄，德育是为了培养自尊心和勇敢豪放的性格。他还主张，在青年们中学毕业之后，还要对其中的优秀分子继续培养。因此，他创办了吕克昂学园。这个学校是古希腊科学发展的主要中心之一。
亚历山大国王十分支持亚里士多德办学，据说先后提供了800金塔兰（每塔兰重合黄金60磅）的经费。亚里士多德在学园里建立了欧洲第一个图书馆，里面了珍藏了许多自然科学和法律方面的书籍。
亚历山大还通令全国，凡是猎手和渔夫抓到稀奇古怪的动物，都要送到亚里士多德那里。学园里开展生物学的研究，时常解剖各种动物。经过无数次的解剖，师生们发现一条规律：动物进化愈是高级，它的生理机构也就愈是复杂。
亚里士多德的学问非常渊博。教课之余，他还写了大量的著作：《工具篇》、《逻辑学》、《物理学》、《政治学》、《修辞学》、《形而上学》、《诗学》，等等，涉及到哲学、逻辑学、心理学、伦理学、政治学、历史学、生理学、美学、物理学、动物学、植物学、生理学、医学等众多的方面，并且都做出了有价值的贡献。值得注意的是，他的认识是有系统的，分门别类的，从基本知识出发加以分析推论或归纳，从而形成一个体系。他是形式逻辑的创始人。他的逻辑学，在两千年前的欧洲思想界就已形成体系。
在亚里士多德之前，科学还处于胚胎时期，亚里士多德孕育了这一胎儿并使它降生。希腊人之前的文化都是用超自然的力量来解释自然界的每种神秘变化的，到处都是神的作用。亚里士多德的光辉成就之一就是能以宽广的胸怀和勇气把科学组织成一个有条不紊的庞大机体。
但是，亚里士多德是拥护奴隶制度的。他认为社会上有一部分人做奴隶，一部分做主人，是“当然而合理”的事，这又说明他思想中的阶级局限。
公元前323年，亚历山大死后，雅典人激烈地反对马其顿的统治。有人告发了曾做了亚历山大老师的亚里士多德，准备将他逮捕。亚里士多德的学生及时得到消息，帮助护送着他们的老师，逃出雅典，来到亚里士多德的故乡优卑斯亚岛的卡尔喀斯城避难。第二年夏天，这位伟大的思想家、哲学家，在凄凉的境遇中死去。

收起

在哪些重要途径,是亚里士多德不同于柏拉图The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle differ on many issues. One of the most important things to examine are their differing views on ethical theory. One can find many points of ...

全部展开

在哪些重要途径,是亚里士多德不同于柏拉图The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle differ on many issues. One of the most important things to examine are their differing views on ethical theory. One can find many points of conflict between the ethical theories of Plato and Aristotle. However, one of the most important points are their differing views on the human function (ergon) and its role in ethics. We will examine two different arguments regarding the human function and compare the different goals of each.
One of the most interesting contrasts between the ethical beliefs of Plato and Aristotle rests in their arguments on the human function. Towards the end of Book One of The Republic, Socrates is trying to prove to Thrasymachus that it is better to be just than unjust. He begins by establishing that everything has its own specific function, and that that function is “that which one can do only with it or best with it (Republic I 352e).” For example, the function of eyes is to see, and since a pruning knife is better suited to pruning than a butcher’s knife, its function is to prune. Having established this, Socrates goes on to argue that everything also has a virtue that relates to the performance of its function. The virtue of eyes would be sight and the virtue of the pruning knife would be its sharpness. An object that is deficient in its virtue is said to be incapable of performing its function well (a dull knife would not be able to cut properly). Having shown this, Socrates turns his attention to the human soul and its function. “Is there some function of a soul that you couldn’t perform with anything else, for example, taking care of things, ruling, deliberating, and the like? Is there anything other than a soul to which you could rightly assign these, and say that they are its peculiar function? ...What of living? Isn’t that a function of the soul? (Republic I 353d)” Thrasymachus agrees to Socrates’ definition of the soul’s function and they go on to examine what the virtue of the soul is, that allows it to perform its function. From his previous argument regarding the importance of virtue in the performance of one’s function, Socrates extrapolates that a non-virtuous soul would do a poor job of ruling, deliberating, living…etc, while a virtuous one would do all of these things admirably. Socrates then references a previous point in the discussion, when he and Thrasymachus had established that justice was the virtue of the soul, and injustice its vice. This allows Socrates to conclude that a just soul and a just man will live well and be happy, while an unjust man will not live well and be unhappy.
The argument that Plato has put forth has one major flaw that is important to examine. When Socrates references his previous conclusion that justice is the virtue of the soul, it is unclear when such a conclusion was soundly argued for. Irwin comments on this problem “It is less clear, however, that Socrates is entitled to assume that justice is the human virtue. Although he has refuted Thrasymachus’ claim that injustice is a virtue, he has not thereby proved that justice is a virtue. (Irwin P.179)” The refutation that Irwin is speaking of are two different arguments that Socrates presented to show that injustice is not the virtue of the soul. The first was when Thrasymachus stated that an unjust person would always be overreaching and trying to best his peers. Socrates responded by showing that this overreaching is not actually a good thing and would be a foolish way to live. The second argument is when Socrates demonstrates that injustice causes internal tension and strife that would be detrimental to the person. Thrasymachus believes that an unjust person would always choose injustice over justice. To this, Socrates responds by asking “Do you think that a city, an army, a band of robbers or thieves, or any other tribe with a common unjust purpose would be able to achieve it if they were unjust to each other? (Republic I 351c)” Thrasymachus agrees that injustice creates conditions under which it is impossible for people to work together. Socrates then applies this conclusion to the soul, stating that injustice prevents the different areas of the soul from working together and thus prevents them from working toward a common goal. Although these two arguments soundly refute Thrasymachus’ claim that injustice is the human virtue, they do not prove that justice is the soul’s virtue.
In the opening chapters of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle examines various types of good ends and concludes that happiness is the ultimate good to pursue. In chapter seven of Book I, Aristotle tackles the role of the human function in the pursuit of happiness/goodness. He first establishes that the good for anything that has a function rests in the performance of that function. Next, Aristotle tries to figure out whether there is a specific function for all human beings, or if a person’s function is only related to his role in society. “Then do the carpenter and the leatherworker have their functions and actions, while a human being has none, and is by nature idle, without any function? Or, just as eye, hand, foot and, in general, every part apparently has its functions, may we likewise ascribe to a human being some function besides all theirs? (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 29-33)” Believing that there is some function that is applicable only to humans, Aristotle attempts to figure out what this function is. First, he excludes the process of growth and nutrition, as neither are applicable only to humans. He also excludes what he calls the life of sense-perception, as this is also not solely a human trait. He finally concludes that the human function is to utilize the part of the soul that exhibits reason. Following this, he puts forth a set of arguments that connect the human function of utilizing reason, to the concept of the ultimate good end. Aristotle establishes that the function of any F is the same as the function of an exceptional F. The only difference is that the exceptional F is expected to do its job well. Combining this point with his idea that the human function is that which expresses reason, Aristotle shows that the excellent man’s function is to express reason in an excellent manner. Aristotle’s next step is to proclaim that all functions will be completed well when they are done in a way that displays the corresponding virtue (ex. The harpists function is said to be completed well when the playing of the harp expresses excellence). He then takes his last three points and reaches his conclusion. “Therefore, by d, e and f, the human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 1098a 10-17)” For Aristotle, the “human good” seems to be synonymous with the attainment of happiness. Thus, in order for a human being to be happy, he or she must live a life that successfully expresses reason.
The major differences that can be seen between these two arguments are seen when we examine the goals of both Plato and Aristotle. Plato has two main goals behind his argument, the first is to refute the position that injustice is better than justice. Secondly, his human function argument helps to set up the idea of his model cities, in which each person has a function and the city is virtuous when everyone performs their own function. Aristotle is examining happiness as the ultimate end and is searching for ways to get to that end. Thus, by proving that this good is found in the expression of reason, Aristotle is able to prescribe a path to happiness. If one fulfills one’s function, expression of reason, and does so in an excellent manner, one will necessarily attain happiness.
Another way in which the two arguments differ is on their actual conceptualization of what the human function is. For Plato, the human function is defined as deliberation, ruling, living and taking care of things. This differs greatly from Aristotle idea