OCR Religious Studies- Is my teacher right?

AI programs suck unfortunately.
It's a pretty good essay - though the whole first section where you explain of the foundation of their theories isn't really linked to the question (no mention of the hierarchy). If it's an intro, it's too long. Just say what you're going to argue and introduce each side in one sentence each maximum.
It would be better if you linked their theories and the criticisms of them more to the rationalism / empiricism disagreement throughout the essay. That would be better than trying to explain rationalism/empiricism at the start and then not making it clear enough how the rest of the essay connects to it.
I can see you've used my notes which is good. But this is a hard question - moulding the content and linking to this question is not easy.
Your defence of animals having telos isn't really that developed or clear. Why not just say Aristotle is wrong about telos - he'd still be more convincing than Plato due to the material and efficient cause.
I'd say it's minimum 28/40.

Hi, I've written an essay and sent it to my teacher and he gave me a really low mark for it. I totally understand that I might've just done a bad job but he left comments about me not writing a thesis when there was one clearly there and a lot of other feedback I didn't think was that accurate re-reading it. I put it through multiple AI programmes and they all gave me marks around 35/ 40 when he gave me 18/40, and when I asked the AI about his mark it said it was very unfair and it didn't understand where it had come from. This teacher is known as generally awful, taking months off at a time and using chatgpt to mark our essays. I don't need a full mark but could someone have a look at my essay please and tell me if I'm right and 18 is harsh? (It seemed to me like he hadn't actually read it through properly).
Critically compare Plato's hierarchy of the forms with Aristotle's four causes. (40)
Both Plato and Aristotle sought to explain the nature of reality and knowledge their theories. Plato proposed the theory of the forms. For Plato, the world of the forms is the true world, with forms being perfect, eternal and unchanging forms of the everyday things we experience. What we experience are imperfect versions of the real form those things partake in. Therefore, Plato suggests we cannot gain knowledge from experience. Within this theory of the forms, there is a hierarchy, with the form of the good being the highest in this hierarchy. It is illustrated in the analogy of the cave by the sun (the first thing the escaped prisoner sees). Aristotle however claimed we can gain knowledge from experience. To him, universals like forms are not abstract entities but are aspects of things we observe (immanent realism). Material objects are therefore a combination of matter and form. He then goes on to argue that to have knowledge of a thing requires understanding why that thing exists, this led him to develop his four causes. It can be seen that there are significant issues with Plato’s argument, although it has some grounding in our experience, and that therefore Aristotle’s more scientific approach is more successful.
Plato’s hierarchy of the forms includes the form of the good as the highest form as it allows us to know the world of the forms and is responsible for the existence of all other forms. He posits that anyone who understands the form of the good becomes morally perfect, unable to do wrong, a ‘philosopher king’. . Below the aforementioned form of the good are higher forms like justice and beauty. Below these, are perfect mathematical forms. Then finally below these are the forms of the things we see in our experience. This may be seen to be logical as it could be generally agreed upon that these concepts are greater than everyday items we use that will not outlast us in the way that concepts such as good and beauty will. However this is less convincing as Aristotle states that there cannot be one unified form of the good which captures all the diverse and contextual forms of goodness in the world. For example, in military strategy, ‘good’ is efficiently killing people, but in medicine ‘good’ is keeping people alive. Aristotle also suggests that being a good person requires doing good, not merely knowing what goodness is. Furthermore, the whole concept of forms can be taken issue with for a similar reason, as things like dirt and bacteria would, under Plato’s theory, have perfect forms. This can be seen to make Plato’s hierarchy of the forms illogical and unconvincing as it does not align with our perception of the world.
Plato’s theory can also be seen as merely a ploy to elevate his own position, or the position of ‘philosopher kings’ as rulers of society. For this reason, it can be suggested that Plato’s hierarchy of the forms and the argument he presents that those who understand the form of the good are morally perfect philosopher kings is not logically consistent as it was simply a means of increasing his own influence. Therefore, overall Plato’s hierarchy of the forms can be seen to be wholly unconvincing.
Conversely, Aristotle’s empiricism claims that we can gain knowledge from experience. He thinks that universals like form are not abstract entities, but are aspects of the things we observe, a view called immanent realism. Material objects are thus a combination of matter and form. He then goes on to argue that to have knowledge of a thing requires an understanding of why it exists. Aristotle thinks that there are four types of causation involved in change. These are known as the material cause (what something is made of), the formal cause (a thing’s essence or defining characteristic), the efficient cause (what brought it into being, its maker) and the final cause which is the end goal of the thing built into its nature, its telos. This is widely understood to be an early version of the scientific method, and aligns with how science works, looking for patterns and trying to gain knowledge by understanding them. Therefore, this can clearly be seen to be more convincing than Plato’s hierarchy of the forms as Aristotle’s theory is still utilised in the modern world, whereas Plato’s hierarchy is largely rejected as is the realm of forms.
However, some may argue that there is no scientific understanding of a ‘telos’ in the universe, as it is composed of atoms and energy in the fields of force. Telos could therefore be argued to be an outdated and unscientific concept which people project onto reality but doesn't really exist. This is a less convincing argument however as it does not invalidate the other 3 causes, which are still utilised in an updated empirical method, so his general approach could be seen to be correct even if he made some errors. Furthermore, telos could now be seen to be true still as many living creatures can be seen to have a purpose still. For example, reproduction to continue species. Therefore, Aristotle’s general approach continues to be correct, even if some aspects have been questioned with modern scientific developments.
In conclusion, Plato’s hierarchy of the forms is far less convincing and successful than Aristotle’s four causes. Aristotle’s approach can be seen to still be widely accepted in its revised format of the scientific method, whereas Plato’s theory of the forms overcomplicates the issue by leaving more questions than answers. Although there are some aspects of Plato’s theory, such as the view that concepts of ‘good’ and ‘beauty’ should be held in higher regard than regular objects which are consistent with our perception of the world, it is overall unconvincing and logically inconsistent. Therefore, it is clear that Aristotle’s four causes are far more successful than Plato’s hierarchy of the forms.

Hi, I've written an essay and sent it to my teacher and he gave me a really low mark for it. I totally understand that I might've just done a bad job but he left comments about me not writing a thesis when there was one clearly there and a lot of other feedback I didn't think was that accurate re-reading it. I put it through multiple AI programmes and they all gave me marks around 35/ 40 when he gave me 18/40, and when I asked the AI about his mark it said it was very unfair and it didn't understand where it had come from. This teacher is known as generally awful, taking months off at a time and using chatgpt to mark our essays. I don't need a full mark but could someone have a look at my essay please and tell me if I'm right and 18 is harsh? (It seemed to me like he hadn't actually read it through properly).
Critically compare Plato's hierarchy of the forms with Aristotle's four causes. (40)
Both Plato and Aristotle sought to explain the nature of reality and knowledge their theories. Plato proposed the theory of the forms. For Plato, the world of the forms is the true world, with forms being perfect, eternal and unchanging forms of the everyday things we experience. What we experience are imperfect versions of the real form those things partake in. Therefore, Plato suggests we cannot gain knowledge from experience. Within this theory of the forms, there is a hierarchy, with the form of the good being the highest in this hierarchy. It is illustrated in the analogy of the cave by the sun (the first thing the escaped prisoner sees). Aristotle however claimed we can gain knowledge from experience. To him, universals like forms are not abstract entities but are aspects of things we observe (immanent realism). Material objects are therefore a combination of matter and form. He then goes on to argue that to have knowledge of a thing requires understanding why that thing exists, this led him to develop his four causes. It can be seen that there are significant issues with Plato’s argument, although it has some grounding in our experience, and that therefore Aristotle’s more scientific approach is more successful.
Plato’s hierarchy of the forms includes the form of the good as the highest form as it allows us to know the world of the forms and is responsible for the existence of all other forms. He posits that anyone who understands the form of the good becomes morally perfect, unable to do wrong, a ‘philosopher king’. . Below the aforementioned form of the good are higher forms like justice and beauty. Below these, are perfect mathematical forms. Then finally below these are the forms of the things we see in our experience. This may be seen to be logical as it could be generally agreed upon that these concepts are greater than everyday items we use that will not outlast us in the way that concepts such as good and beauty will. However this is less convincing as Aristotle states that there cannot be one unified form of the good which captures all the diverse and contextual forms of goodness in the world. For example, in military strategy, ‘good’ is efficiently killing people, but in medicine ‘good’ is keeping people alive. Aristotle also suggests that being a good person requires doing good, not merely knowing what goodness is. Furthermore, the whole concept of forms can be taken issue with for a similar reason, as things like dirt and bacteria would, under Plato’s theory, have perfect forms. This can be seen to make Plato’s hierarchy of the forms illogical and unconvincing as it does not align with our perception of the world.
Plato’s theory can also be seen as merely a ploy to elevate his own position, or the position of ‘philosopher kings’ as rulers of society. For this reason, it can be suggested that Plato’s hierarchy of the forms and the argument he presents that those who understand the form of the good are morally perfect philosopher kings is not logically consistent as it was simply a means of increasing his own influence. Therefore, overall Plato’s hierarchy of the forms can be seen to be wholly unconvincing.
Conversely, Aristotle’s empiricism claims that we can gain knowledge from experience. He thinks that universals like form are not abstract entities, but are aspects of the things we observe, a view called immanent realism. Material objects are thus a combination of matter and form. He then goes on to argue that to have knowledge of a thing requires an understanding of why it exists. Aristotle thinks that there are four types of causation involved in change. These are known as the material cause (what something is made of), the formal cause (a thing’s essence or defining characteristic), the efficient cause (what brought it into being, its maker) and the final cause which is the end goal of the thing built into its nature, its telos. This is widely understood to be an early version of the scientific method, and aligns with how science works, looking for patterns and trying to gain knowledge by understanding them. Therefore, this can clearly be seen to be more convincing than Plato’s hierarchy of the forms as Aristotle’s theory is still utilised in the modern world, whereas Plato’s hierarchy is largely rejected as is the realm of forms.
However, some may argue that there is no scientific understanding of a ‘telos’ in the universe, as it is composed of atoms and energy in the fields of force. Telos could therefore be argued to be an outdated and unscientific concept which people project onto reality but doesn't really exist. This is a less convincing argument however as it does not invalidate the other 3 causes, which are still utilised in an updated empirical method, so his general approach could be seen to be correct even if he made some errors. Furthermore, telos could now be seen to be true still as many living creatures can be seen to have a purpose still. For example, reproduction to continue species. Therefore, Aristotle’s general approach continues to be correct, even if some aspects have been questioned with modern scientific developments.
In conclusion, Plato’s hierarchy of the forms is far less convincing and successful than Aristotle’s four causes. Aristotle’s approach can be seen to still be widely accepted in its revised format of the scientific method, whereas Plato’s theory of the forms overcomplicates the issue by leaving more questions than answers. Although there are some aspects of Plato’s theory, such as the view that concepts of ‘good’ and ‘beauty’ should be held in higher regard than regular objects which are consistent with our perception of the world, it is overall unconvincing and logically inconsistent. Therefore, it is clear that Aristotle’s four causes are far more successful than Plato’s hierarchy of the forms.