How did Plato and Aristotle differ in the way they believed the mind Essay

How did Plato and Aristotle differ in the way they believed the mind should perceive reality - Essay Example In fact we are only describing our image of reality. The materiality we observe, the solidness we feel, the whole of the real world that we know, are, like color, sound, smell, and all the other qualities we experience, qualities manifesting in the mind. This is the startling conclusion we are forced to acknowledge; the stuff of our world-the world we know and appear to live within-is not matter, but mind (Russell). While psychology is interested in the nature of humanity, in understanding how human beings function, psychology is by no means the only field of inquiry that seeks answers to the puzzles of human nature.The earliest roots of the modern discipline of psychology can be traced to two different approaches to human behavior. Philosophy is a means of exploring and understanding various aspects of the nature of the world in general - including human nature. Philosophy operates primarily through introspection - the self-examination ofideas and inner experiences. The second field from which psychology derives is physiology- the scientific study of living organisms and of life sustaining processes and functions. Plato (428-348 B.C.) and Aristotle (384- 322 B.C.) also believed that the mind was to be found within the body. Plato located it in the brain and Aristotle placed it in the heart. Plato and Aristotle had a profound effect on modern thinking not only in psychology but also in many fie lds. With regard to psychology they particularly impacted three areas: the relationship between mind and body, the use of observation versus introspection as a means of discovering truth, the question of what is the original source of our ideas (Sternberg as quoted by Griffin, 2004). Plato's theory of representation is substantially different from Aristotle's, for whom some sensations are objective. Reason for Aristotle need only distinguish between accurate and inaccurate sensory images in order to gain access to the real outside world. For Plato no sensory evidence is objective. Reality is only within the inner, ideal, remembered world. Plato and Aristotle had different views on the nature of reality.Plato had a very different attitude towards representation than Aristotle. Plato believed that reality

Aristotle Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Aristotle - Essay Example p.)Aristotle reaches the threshold of spirituality but stumbles there. He is unable to cross the final hurdle to the land of the divine, where bliss alone reigns. It is the conflict –free land of peace, with no secular dualities. The question is how to reach the level of eternal and universal truth? Aristotle’s ethical theory is incomplete and creates a vacuum. How can an ethical man know about the correctness of a moral decision? His theory does not explain how to act morally and it suffers from lack of specifics. There is a â€Å"brain† behind the working and functioning of this entire cosmos of which humankind is the part. A brain that is par-excellence, supreme and extraordinary! The top-scientists of this world are unable to withstand its power. One has no option but to agree that such an out of the world genius could only be hailed as God. In this context, let me give a practical example. Take it that we are in a railway station waiting for the arrival of d estination train. We have a heavy suitcase that consists of apparel and currency notes. All of a sudden, we are required to go somewhere for a short while. But the suitcase is heavy and we are not comfortable to carry the suitcase while rushing over there. In such a situation, will we handover the suitcase to some unknown person with whom we are not acquainted with? No! Never! Suppose some of our known person, our neighbor with whom we are well-acquainted with, or a relative happens to be there? Undoubtedly, we will trust that known individual, handover the suitcase to him and will go for the intended purpose, without any worry. A known person is worthy of trust. Meaning, introduction and knowledge are the foundation stones of the edifice of trust. It is but natural, that which is worth the trust, is worthy of love as well. To such an individual we will handover without hesitation the costliest of the things. Meaning, at the root of all this procedure is—knowing or introducti on! For the glow it is necessary to light the bulb. For enjoying the taste, it is necessary to eat the item. Just by watching the game from the gallery, one will not be able to gauge the level of enthusiasm that goes on in the heart of the player on the ground. To know that he has to be the player, take active part in the game, and reach the ground, after its practice. For a student of science, it is not sufficient, if he learns some theorems and the theory part of the syllabus. He has to reach out to the laboratory, and it is necessary for him to do the experiments. On the same line, in the field of practical vision of God, only study of texts, discussions and meditation, are not adequate to reach the goal. Practically experience and view the glorious procession of divine designs and creations within! Aristotle does not have a clear picture about the inner world. Therefore he falters and his arguments are incomplete. They reach the dead end. Theoretical wisdom is not adequate to re ach the level of â€Å"eternal and universal truth.† Now the question arises, after all, how this matchless world has been accommodated in this tiny human body? In what form and by adopting which procedure one can have the practical vision of its entire details? Let me illustrate this position through a scenario: Once a Realized Soul, (one who knows the â€Å"eternal and universal truth†) was giving a spiritual discourse. Amongst the audience, one intellectual Surgeon (Doctor) was there. The moment he heard that human body was the abode of the Lord and an inner world exists within, he was unable to digest that reasoning and was agitated much. He expressed his doubts about what was told in the spiritual discourse. Putting forth the arguments he questioned RS (Realized Soul), â€Å"