Plato: I’d rather have it stated that knowledge has to be acquired from physical substance. One has to feel the form in order to perceive his or her own environment to construct knowledge.
Aristotle: Why would there have to be substantial element in knowledge. It is the mind that perceives knowledge. Though at some point it may play a role, it does not have to be mandatory in acquisition of knowledge.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Dialogue between Plato and Aristotle".
Plato: So, in your view, what makes up knowledge; is it sufficient to have facts without the object component?
Aristotle: Knowledge is more logical than physical, my learned Plato. It is confined within the mind. Imagine a person in world with no finite objects, what would you suggest in that case? Would the person not be in a position to understand their environment and establish sufficient knowledge?
Plato: I did not mean that there would be no knowledge per se without objectification. Knowledge has to be meaningful and for that to exist, we have to complement logic with objects.
Aristotle: I think what you ought to infer to be evidence. Is it not from empirical evidence that we are in a position to construct bases of all forms and knowledge?
Plato: That is a way of looking at it, though I wouldn’t be in support of that. Ideas are much stronger in perceiving what takes place in the environment. I thought you would mention something on the case of allegory cave.
Aristotle: Of course I would. Form is not substantial enough to make up to knowledge. Though the prisoners would have no option but to rely on the echoes and shadows to develop knowledge, this would not set them free from the fire. In the long-run, something more would have to be done to save the situation. Would they simply rely on these images and sounds without proper reasoning and development of logical thinking? No, humans have instincts, and it is from these that all knowledge can be derived.
Plato: It all stands to debate my good Aristotle, knowledge exists, but, I wouldn’t defy the fact that object and form are both essential in the understanding of what is involved in its acquisition.
Aristotle: Remember the form that is considered in this case is not only in the case where people are left with no option, like in the case of the prisoners. It would be a state where people have multiple choices to make decisions from. Is it not true that these decisions would still be made in the long run?
Plato: I do not understate the power of the brain and its capability in deriving knowledge. However, would the people set in dilemma not have the need of urgency? I think in reasonable argument, they would prefer making decisions that are final. This would be what they rely on as part of future knowledge. They would infer to the environment to establish meaning out of objects and perceptions.
Aristotle: As long as you stick to the last point where you talk about derivation of perceptions, I am inclined to your thoughts. When the environmental and object component sets in, I have divergent views. Let’s leave it to debate. Perhaps Socrates would help settle the conflict. But all that stands to doubt.
Opinion
In my view, Plato seems to have stronger content and argument on the theory of knowledge and forms. It is true that the mind perceives what amounts to knowledge, but the incorporation of the object element has to be included. It is through this integration that meaningful knowledge can be acquired and used. I would, therefore, support Plato’s argument.
