Table of ContentsIntroductionDiscussionConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionFor centuries, great philosophers have considered what it means to be good. Plato and Aristotle are perhaps two of the most influential philosophers on this issue. Although their philosophies are very different, they both define the “good life.” When we compare these men, we can better understand how to define the good life for ourselves and how we can find value in the activities we engage in every day. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayDiscussionChronologically, Plato comes first. We will therefore start with his philosophy. Plato is probably best known for his Allegory of the Cave. In this dialogue, Socrates portrays his student Glaucon. Long story short, there are three men in a cave and all they can see are shadows on the wall from the outside world. Shadows are all these men have ever known. After setting the scene, Socrates asks hypothetical questions regarding the cave's inhabitants. He proposes that if you dragged a man from inside the cave to "the real world", he would go through phases of shock and disbelief, but would eventually adapt. Plato argues that the main goal is to enlighten others in the cave. Plato believes in the theory of forms. This means that everything we see is only a shadow of what it is. For example, if I were admiring the sunrise on the beach, Plato would say that I am only looking at a shadow of what the sunrise is. Plato would then lead me to see the true shape of the sunrise, which may actually be a very large television screen installed by NASA. Of course, this example may be a bit extreme and Plato may be just a bit dead, so let's take a different approach. example. Let's say I think the world is flat. An astronaut would then show me how round the world is by taking me into space and showing me first hand that it is round. Perhaps the best example comes from the philosopher David Macintosh, where he illustrates, in an article on Platonic thought, a fundamental application. He says: “Take, for example, a perfect triangle, as a mathematician might describe it. This would be a description of the shape or idea of ​​a (a) triangle. Plato says that such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own domain. Considering this idea of ​​a perfect triangle, one might also be tempted to grab a pencil and paper and draw it. Of course, our attempts will fail. Plato would say that men's attempts to recreate the Form will end up being only a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Idea or Shape of a triangle and the drawing we get to invent is a way of comparing the perfect and the imperfect. The quality of our drawing will depend on our ability to recognize the shape of the triangle. Although no one has ever seen a perfect triangle, for Plato this was not a problem. If we can conceive the idea or shape of a perfect triangle in our mind, then the idea of ​​the triangle must exist. » After this example, Macintosh then goes on to explain how Plato would go about informing others about the shape of a triangle. According to Plato’s philosophy, the “good life” is transcendence. It simply means to be enlightened and to teach others. In addition to this, it is important to realize that Plato was very adamant about how to “enlighten” someone in the right way. Thatmeans not being arrogant and respectfully showing others the true form of object/subject x. In his work Apology, Plato shows his sense of respect because he does not agree with the norm. This can be seen when he says: “I said to myself: I am wiser than this man; none of us probably knows anything really good, but he thinks he has knowledge, when he doesn't have it, while I, having no knowledge, don't think I have it. That's it, in short , Plato's idea of ​​the good life. Now that we're done with Plato, it's time to look at his brash, scholarly counterpart, Aristotle. Aristotle is probably best known for his work The Nicomachean Ethics. In this book, Aristotle sets out his idea of ​​the “good life” and rejects the theory of form. He argues that the only way to live the “good life” is “…virtuous activity of the soul, of a certain kind.” For Aristotle, virtue must be “…capable of noble [and good] acts.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 75) In addition to being virtuous, one must function correctly in society. This idea is comparable to the Macintosh example provided to us. While Plato would theorize a perfect triangle, Aristotle would not focus on how there could be a perfect triangle, but rather how he could make the triangle the best it could be by learning about it. Of course, these two philosophers would not focus on such meaningless things; we leave the triangles to Pythagoras. To get a better view of these two schools of thought, let's replace the triangle with society. In Plato's mind, society as we know it might be a shadow of what it is. For example, society might be extremely “broken,” so much so that we think it is perfect. It would take someone or an event to solve this problem. For lack of a better example, let's look at this from a Christian perspective. Let's say Jesus comes back next year. He would enlighten people to follow him. These people would enlighten others, and these people would enlighten others and so on. Those who have been enlightened would have an obligation to teach others. Once you have enlightened others, you have lived the “good life”. Aristotle, however, would have a different approach. He would say that society is exactly what it is and that it is our responsibility to know it. He probably wouldn't care if anyone came to enlighten him or not. He would say that it is best for us to learn how we operate. Aristotle would say that we should focus on certainty. Once you have learned where you work in society, you have lived in society. At this point, it's pretty clear to see how Plato and Aristotle differ – it may even seem like they're polar opposites. However, they share some beliefs. For example, both believe in a multi-level society. They don't see this in a negative way, but simply as a reality. Plato believed that those who possessed knowledge should rule. Below the “leaders” are the “protectors” and “producers”. Aristotle believed that everyone had their place. An example of this can be seen in running a business. At the top we have the founder/CEO. Next we have financial advice. Under them we have normal employees. Then we have customers. Finally, we have the concierges. If one of these pieces is missing, a chain reaction would cause the whole thing to collapse. They also agree on the main goal of a good life. They would say you have to be a functioning member of society. Although their definitions of function may differ, they come together at this point. Both would also say that the. 21.