• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evaluate Aristotles view that the soul is mortal and inseparable from the body, making reference to Plato.

Extracts from this document...


Transfer-Encoding: chunked ´╗┐Evaluate Aristotle?s view that the soul is mortal and inseparable from the body, making reference to Plato Aristotle argued that a living creature is substance made of two parts body and soul. The soul of which is form and the body, matter. He argued that the body and soul are two interdependent parts of a human that rely on each other. When the body dies as does the soul, there was no separation at death and no afterlife. Aristotle placed great emphasis on physical world and the forces adopted within this. On the other hand, Plato was a dualist and believed that the soul was the single most important part of a person and believed in the importance of moral concepts, ideas and the afterlife. Aristotle was Plato?s most prized student, but disagreed with him on a lot of cases, these disagreements came from fundamental differences between the two philosophers as Plato was a rationalist whilst Aristotle was empiricist. Plato believed in the ideal realm, which is a pre-existence of the soul, in other words us in soul form without a body. ...read more.


This would also contradict both Aristotle & Plato?s theistic point of views which argued that God only blew the breath of soul in to people. A problem comes for philosophers including Aristotle in the distinction between the body and soul. Aristotle quite elegantly put through his theory using an analogy of an axe. Arguing that is a person were a metaphorical axe, then its body would be made of metal & wood, however the soul would be the thing to actually make it an axe, without it, it would be nothing but metal and wood, the soul adds the swinging capacity that gives it use. If it lost its soul it would no longer be an axe. For Aristotle what was really important was the end purpose of the object. An axe to chop, an eye to see, a teacher to teach. Aristotle, unlike Plato dualist theories, believed that the body and soul are different parts of the same overall being. This does not allow for the immortality of the soul. ...read more.


As Plato argues that opposite forms may not exist in the same object. For example an axe cannot be both sharp and blunt. As the soul derives life through association with the form of life it cannot admit death. This association leads to an immortal soul trapped in a constant cycle of being embodied then escaping at death to return to the ideal realm, and then reborn into another human body. In conclusion I disagree with Aristotle?s view that the soul is mortal and inseparable from the body, although I credit him for his strong arguments and analogy of the axe. The main reason for my support of Plato does not come from Plato himself, but from a rationalist standpoint. My key concern with Aristotle?s work on this matter is that it doesn?t fully combat the idea of innate knowledge of which is key. Chomsky?s linguistic arguments have also been backed up by experiments with animals of which are smarter than a three year old child yet have not been able to learn a basic form of language. Proving to me that there is some form of pre-existing soul possibly from the soul having lived before or from the ideal realm. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. compare Plato and Aristotle's view of the soul

    Forming the outer appearance the body uses senses to make opinions about the physical world in which it belongs. However in Plato's opinion it could not reach the "world of the forms" in any way. The body is constantly changing and therefore not truly real.

  2. Compare and contrast Plato's concept of the Body and Soul with Aristotle's.

    It's not the Soul itself, as Plato believes but it's the reason of the living thing or object. The reason is the specific qualities that a person or object has. Aristotle wrote "Suppose then that eye were an animal-sight would have been its Soul...

  1. Comparison of Plato and Aristotle's views of how knowledge is obtained and the body ...

    The form of something is its structure, and its characteristics, it can always be perceived by the senses. Aristotle used the word 'substance' to express the material of which things are made of. For example, the substances of a table are: wood, nails and glue and the form of a

  2. Explain Plato's and Aristotle's ideas of form, body, knowledge and soul.

    Such familiar, concrete things as trees, human bodies and animals, which can be known through the senses, are merely shadowy, imperfect copies of their Forms. For every sense object in the empirical world, there is a corresponding perfect Form. These Forms are non-physical, permanent, eternal, and invisible.

  1. Compare, contrast and evaluate Plato and Mill on the relationship between individual and society

    There are always people who will disagree with something that others agree with, so who is 'right'? Plato believes that in order to have a productive and harmonious society, conditioning or training is necessary to ensure that the members' actual desires coincide as far as possible with their real desires, thus reducing conflict.

  2. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    aspect of their character and development removed from them (as undoubtedly the ailment would have changed them as a person, however small the change) and so it would not be the actual person that was carried on. John Hick would counter-argue and state that it would be entirely plausible that

  1. Evaluate the claim that the soul is distinct from the body:

    In this way, Ryle argued that talk of the soul was talk about the way a person acted and integrated with others in the world. It was not separate and distinct. To describe someone as clever or happy did not require the existence of a separate thing called mind or soul.

  2. Comapring Aristotle's Prime Mover and the Judeo-Christian God

    the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory has been proven and although there are still gaps in the knowledge, we know through evolution that the idea that God ?made mankind in his image? is incorrect because science has proved that humans evolved from other animals, so therefore God could not have created animals like apes and humans separately.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work