in what important ways was Aristotle different from Plato

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.