Aristotle and Human Nature Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Aristotle and Human Nature - Essay ExamplePlato (427-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) both, be society in holistic terms and regarded it as an organism in which the constituent parts were necessarily related to the whole. Plato, in particular, placed special emphasis on the unity of the well-disposed organism, each individual part clearly defined in terms of its subordination to the whole. Society to Aristotle on the other hand, was a diametricaliated structure create of separate elements which, while contri only whening to the whole, retained their separate entities. To Plato, society was a unified system merged around the division of labour and social inequality. Social health or social order was the ware of wise legislation in which the interests of the whole exerted priority over those of the individual parts. (Smith, Page 15)On the other hand Aristotles approximation of society was anti-atomistic. The complex and differentiated structure of the social whole was made up of groups and not individuals. The foundations of it present in military personnel nature that man was by nature social and political and therefore in demand(p) to live with others in communities. Therefore, according to Aristotle, the lives of individuals were invariably linked with each other in a social context. He agrees with Plato that a life of virtue is not only rewarding for the person who is virtuous but also good for the community in which he belongs. He also agrees that the highest form of compassionate foundation is that in which man is able to exercise his rational faculties to its fullest. He expounded his theories on moral conduct and human nature in several efforts like Eudemian Ethics and Magna Moralia, but the most complete work which survives to our old age is the Nicomachean Ethics. In Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses in length about mans natural desire to achieve happiness. He then discusses what this happiness means and described human volition and mora l deliberation. He described the three different kinds of friendship and the value of each. He then defended his conception of an ideal life which consisted of intellectual pursuit. In his views he agrees with Plato that a life of virtue is not only rewarding for the virtuous but is also respectable for the society in which the individual belongs. He is also in agreement with Plato when he says that the highest form of human existence is one in which man exercises his rational and mental faculties to their fullest. Both Platos and Aristotles philosophies are anti-Sophist. They both seek to draw a theory of what is the essence of a good life and their theories are based on the foundations of their companionship about the stable nature of reality. But there the similarities end. Whereas Plato is a rationalist viewing our knowledge of reality as derived from intuitive reason, and an idealist locating ultimate reality in an eternal, immutable reality of Ideas, Aristotle is an empiri cist, anchoring all knowledge of reality in perpetual experience, and a realist, identifying reality with the concrete spatio-temporal objects of this world. (Pomerleau, 1997)The central discourse of Nicomachean Ethics, revolves around moral responsibilities of individuals, virtues and vices, and how to achieve happiness in life. The central issue is what it takes for a person to be a good individual. It