In real life all that is seen is an illusion smoke of the real thing. Wayne State UP, Here, then, I am willing to offer my own definition of imitation as it is used by Aristotle in The Poetics: To some degree this breakdown creates a sense of disdain for imagery which is seen as a mere replica of an idea and physical representation of the idea; removed significantly from truth.
Gilbert in Literary Criticism: The medium of imitation is taken to be three-fold: Since poetry appeals to the more illusory sense perception, it is placed lower in the scale; it cannot therefore have any access to the Forms, the highest reality possible. He claimed that there was a relationship between the realm of Forms and our world.
Plato lived between and BC. I believe the Forms which Plato believed in were not real. He claims that what we see on earth are mimics of the real thing, only with a lot of imperfections.
Although both men believed in the concept of forms, they both defined this concept differently.
Both Plato and Aristotle, the foremost philosophers of their time, arrived at widely different answers to the questions above. Their differing views on mimesis, as outlined principally in The Republic and The Poetics, were thus partly a consequence of their differences in their ontological and epistemological views of the world.
Aristotles beliefs lead to him seeing only one level of reality. Plato therefore seems to cover the case of his own dialogues, where he speaks through the mouths of Socrates, Adeimantus and Glaucon.
Firstly there is the conceptual notion of form and matter as integral parts of objects of nature. But Aristole argues from what would seem to be an obvious premise yet one that seems to be ignored by Plato: Importantly, however, Aristotle recognises that the study of matter is not completely subservient to eidos, or form: Each step in this continuous chain is necessary for the sake of the end, and no step occurs simply by chance, but by a cause or combination of causes.
The two men held different approaches to forms. Plato imagined that there existed an ideal or perfect world beyond our own physical earth.
Which is not to say that Aristotle did not turn the full force of his analytical mind upon the subject, merely that his observations on poetry are consonant with his over-all theory of Becoming.
They both held different views on the levels of reality. It simply asks what is the nature of being?
Fine arts such as poetry rather imitate nature in the sense that they do not complete her, as do the useful arts, but imitate the teleological process whereby nature moves toward a specific end. As well the plot must be a unity, such that if any event were removed the plot would be irreparably damaged; it must be complete and entire, and of reasonable size.
Both of the two thinkers approached metaphysics differently. Certainly these arts use very different methods and it is difficult to conceive their functions as identical as Plato makes out. Rather it is their function to deceive: All too often, though, poetry shows unjust men prospering while good men suffer.
For Plato in his analogy of the cave, this one truth was represented by the sun. This simply means that Plato developed his ideas from within and applied them to the outside world.
The faults with art occur within art itself, says Aristotle — the only fault is to represent things inartistically; in other words, a fault with the imitation itself. Whether they are correct upon certain details such as the intricacies of the art of charioteering an example put to Ion in Ion p17 is irrelevant according to Aristotle: Our earthly world is full of unevenness, imperfections, and impurities which have been copied from the true ideal world which is beyond us.
And later, in Book X, Plato claims that most poetry of necessity contains evil men in order to produce interest and pleasureand this too forms a basis for a wide-ranging condemnation of poetry.
Poetry and drama, being forms of art and thus imitations of nature in the above senseimitate this process of change. Furthermore, where that imitated character has undesirable traits, the imitation is to be avoided.
Oxford University Press, For Plato reality can be broken down into four separate fields or concepts - one good possibly defined as God ; ideas; physical reality; and lastly imagery.
Plato uses this in a sustained attack on Homer Republic, X, p Aristotle places much more importance on form than matter, in opposition to the majority of pre-Socratic philiosophers the Ionians, for example, who sought the basic substance from which all objects in the universe were fashioned.Both philosophers believe in an outside influence on the world, yet while there are some similarities between Plato and Aristotle’s view on ultimate reality, their views differ significantly when it comes to the Forms.
Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process.
Plato and Aristotle This Essay Plato and Aristotle and other 64,+ term papers, college essay examples and free essays are available now on mint-body.com Autor: review • December 24, • Essay • 1, Words (5 Pages) • Views4/4(1).
We will write a custom essay sample on Aristotle vs Plato specifically for you for only $ $/page. Order now Both Plato and Aristotle have confusing views on our reality, and I believe that Aristotle explains the truth of it more clearly.
However, I do not think either of them is right in explaining the actuality of our reality. Essay on Aristotle and Plato's Views on Reality - Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible.
“Explain the differences between Plato and Aristotle’s view of reality”. Plato imagined that there existed an ideal or perfect world beyond our own physical earth.Download