Plato's form of the good versus Aristotle's prime mover

1.

If there is one Form of the Good, why are there disagreements about what true goodness is? - Surely this would be universally accepted.

2.

Plato's World of the Forms (in which good is included) is an unchanging concept however you can argue that: change is better than immutability and it is an important part of our world (evolution for example). Without change we wouldn't be able to progress or mature.

1.

Aristotle says we can observe natural things that seem to have a telos so he argues the Prime Mover explains the reason for change and motus as the prime mover attracts everything. However observation is a human construct and humans give things a telos - it is external to the object (not intrinsic) - therefore if there is no external purpose/telos, this discredits Aristotle's reason for motus and therefore there is no need for a final cause or Prime Mover.

2.

If the prime mover is pure thought, how can there be any causal connection with the physical universe and there must be if the prime mover is able to affect and move it?

1.

both are transcendent and cannot be known empirically (using senses) - reason needs to be used to understand them both

2.

both are perfect, unchanging, eternal

3.

prime mover = telos of everything, form of good = the aim of everything

1.

MOTUS - prime mover draws and attracts motus towards itself because it is the ultimate final cause/ telos - whereas the form of the good is unchanging because it belongs to the world of the forms so therefore change only occurs in the imperfect world of appearances.

2.

LOCATION - prime mover is part of the material universe - form of the good is part of the world of the forms, not this world.

3.

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE WORLD - prime mover has no connection with things in the world - the form of the good participates in all forms and we can recognise it in the world of appearances (our world) e.g. we see goodness in a good person or a good dog or a good pencil.

1.

prime mover explains why there is change (everything is drawn to its perfection)

2.

Plato doesn't clearly explain how form of the good participates in objects or concepts in this world of appearances whereas aristotles prime mover gives a clearer explanation

3.

Aristotle based his theory of the prime mover on sense experience and the final cause (purpose/ telos)

1.

the form of the good also explains why there is change in the world of appearances - imperfect world has change

2.

form of the good explains why we recognise good in things and why things vary in the amount of goodness e.g. pen is good because it writes well/ there is enough ink etc. but person is good because they help others/ are kind - form of the good participates in the pen and the person

3.

prime mover cannot be observed empirically (using senses) so it is better to use reason to work out the truth

•

both moved from empiricism to rationalism - neither can be empirically verified

•

POINT: FotG commits more fallacies/inconsistencies

•

Eg. infinite regression (which is avoided by PM as Aristotle recognises interactional separation between PM and the world)

•

Position within a hierarchy is self-defeating as FotG is incorruptible + eternal

•

Plato both suggests a diversity of forms + in The Republic, (Allegory of the Sun) that only 1 form necessarily exists (good) ~ unclear how FotG can simultaneously exist in all forms whilst also being singular and divine

•

Karl Popper suggests it is an inductive leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion of the FotG from the premise that all things are have something in common ~ FotG fails to explain this as we might ask what quality the FotG has in common with another form eg. kindness, and we would have to come up with a higher form than the FotG, and so on and so on (ad infinitum) ~ so FotG really tells us nothing as a theory

•

In contrast, PM has 1 consistent logic explaining flux. It isn't regressive as it has to do with a singular cause rather than properties of things.