Paper 1 Philosophy

01.01. Ancient Philosophical

Influences
L4 Evaluating Aristotle
How does Plato's Form of the Good compare with Aristotle's Prime Mover?
c
In some ways, these two different ideas have a considerable amount in common. Both Plato's ideas about the
Form of the Good, and Aristotle's ideas about the Prime Mover, have been profoundly influential on the
Christian understanding of God. Plato's understanding of the Form of the Good gives Christians the concept of
God as a perfect source of goodness, an exemplar of what goodness fundamentally means, with an ultimate
reality and existence which is permanent and unchanging, unlike the temporary nature of this physical world
and of human goodness. Aristotle's understanding of the Prime Mover gives Christianity an understanding of a
God who is the ultimate cause of all that exists but is himself not caused by anything else.

Both the Form of the Good and the Prime Mover ideas give an answer to the question of why anything exists
at all. The Form of the Good is seen at the top of a hierarchy, illuminating everything else; physical things are
just imitations of the Forms, and so without the Forms nothing would exist. The Prime Mover, too, is seen as
the primary cause of existence, the reason why everything is in motion and the first cause of all the causes and
effects we see in our dynamic world.

Both the Form of the Good and the Prime Mover, like the God of Christianity, have an independent, necessary
existence'; they depend on nothing else for their own existence. They were not brought into being by anything
outside themselves, and they do not depend on anything else in order to continue their existence.

Also, and unlike the God of Christianity, neither the Form of the Good nor the Prime Mover take an interest in
the moral affairs of humanity. The Form of the Good does not have a mind with which to take an interest in
anything; the Prime Mover, according to Aristotle, cannot interact with the world (otherwise it would be
affected, but in Aristotle's view it is pure cause with no potential for change). Although both are understood as
perfect, neither is capable of noticing or caring whether humans behave morally.

The two ideas also have some significant differences. The Form of the Good is not a 'being' with a mind; it has
no intentions or emotions. It is the exemplification of a quality, but it does not have any kind of activity. The
Prime Mover, in contrast, draws things to itself by attraction, making them move and change. The Prime
Mover thinks of itself and its own perfect nature, whereas the Form of the Good does not have a mind with
which to think. The Form of the Good is solely goodness, whereas the Prime Mover is more to do with motion,
cause and change rather than morality. The Form of the Good is something which, possibly, humans might be
able to encounter once they have left this physical life, but there is no suggestion that humans could ever gain
further knowledge of the Prime Mover after death.

Similarities between Aristotle's Prime Mover and Plato's Form of the Good:
Both are transcendent and cannot be known using the senses - so reason needs to be used to understand
them both. This is consistent with Plato’s understanding of ultimate reality however for Aristotle, this
represents a departure from his otherwise empiricist views.

Both are perfect, unchanging and eternal. With Plato it was because the Form of the Good was instrinsically
good, it was good in-and-of itself. The Prime Mover is considered to be perfect actuality, so does not have the
capacity to be different. The Prime Mover is the telos (purpose) of everything and the Form of the Good is the
aim of everything - to know and understand the Form of the Good. Both are also considered to be immaterial
as the Form of the Good is argued to be an idea of pure goodness. Aristotle’s Prime Mover is considered to be
pure thought, that has no potential to be different.

Differences:
The explanations each gives for motus (process of continual change):
The Prime Mover draws or attracts all motus towards itself because it is the ultimate final cause or purpose.
The Form of the Good is unchanging and part of the World of the Forms Change happens only in the imperfect
World of Appearances because it is imitating the Forms but its imperfect matter will change and decay

Where each is located:

The Prime Mover is part of the material universe in an orbit beyond the planets however Aristotle’s
understanding of cosmology was inaccurate and a reflection of the limitations of his society.
Whereas The Form of the Good is in the real world (World of the Forms) not part of this world.

How each is involved in the world:

The Prime Mover has no connection with things in the world, however it does has a substantial impact on the
world as it drawns all purpose towards itself. It is also the first cause, there was nothing before it. It can not
interact with the world as this would entail it to change, which it can not do, as it does not have the potential
to be different. The Form of the Good participates in all the Forms and we can recognise it in things in the
World of Appearances, for example, we recognise goodness in a good knife, a good person and a good dog. So
it is involved in the world in so far as everything in the world ‘participates’ in goodness to an extent. It also
illuminates the rational soul with truth.

How does Plato's rationalism compare with Aristotle's empiricism?

Plato's rationalism presents us with the view that reason is the ultimate way to gain knowledge. Plato
advocates rationalism because, in his view, the physical world of constant change cannot give us the certainty
that we need in order to gain knowledge. Reason, such as is found for example in the solving of mathematical
problems, gives us answers where there is no room for doubt. We are not going to find a straight line one day
which is not the shortest distance between two points, or find two even numbers which add up to make an
odd number. Truths arrived at through reason seem to have an unshakeable and enduring quality. For the
rationalist, a wise person is someone who has spent time in contemplation, perhaps living in a way which is
withdrawn from the everyday world.

Aristotle's empiricism is an example of the view that the primary source of all our knowledge is experience.
According to the empiricist, we encounter the world through our senses first, and then we use these sense
experiences to form our concepts. We cannot picture in our minds colours we have never seen, and even
when we make up imaginary worlds, for example when we play as children, we still use real-life sense

experience as a basis for our fantasy worlds. The mind can reach knowledge by reflecting on sense
experiences, but, according to the empiricist, sense experience has to come first. For the empiricist, a wise
person might be someone who has travelled widely and lived through all kinds of different situations.

Many people will argue that there is no need to choose between using reason and using sense experience to
gain knowledge; we can use both together. They might argue that in some areas of knowledge, reason is more
important, such as in mathematics and perhaps philosophy, whereas in other areas, sense experience is more
important, such as in natural science or the arts; but in all areas of knowledge, we need both rationality and
our senses in order to reach understanding. However, this still leaves open the question of which might come
first - whether we start with concepts, such as beauty, and then recognise beautiful things when we see them,
or whether we see things first, and then follow this with the concept that they are beautiful.

The rationalist might argue that reason is superior to experience because our senses can often mislead us,
whereas when we use the logical processes of reason, we can be much more certain of our conclusions. For
example, my sense might tell me that when I put my pencil in a glass of water, the pencil is bent. But reason
overrides what my eyes are telling me; reason tells me that water can not bend pencils.

The empiricist might argue that experience is superior to reason, because reason is very limited unless it has
sense experience to provide it with information. I can not tell, using my reason, whether its starting to rain on
my washing on the line outside; I need to look.