You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Plato and Aristotle Theories
Pages 3 (753 words)
According to Melchert the term universal means a general concept (11). The nature of universals is argued by Plato and Aristotle (Greek Philosophers) in different ways. Plato argued that all things or a property have a universal form…
For example, when we look at an orange, we analyze the particular orange and a universal form of an orange. Moreover, when we place the orange near a plate, we speak of both of them been next to each other. Furthermore, he also argued the existence of “unistantiated universals”. These are universal forms that do not relate to a particular thing. When we speak that there is a particular good in existence, for example, then “good” can be referred as proper universal form (Melchert, 28). However, Aristotle challenged Plato’s argument that the nature of universals is instantiated. He argued that all universals are attached to existing things. Aristotle believed that the nature of universal can be predicted. This is because universal only exist its relation must have occurred, is occurring or must occur in the future. Hence if a universal cannot be predicted to an object that occurred in a certain period, it cannot exist. He also maintained universal location exist within each thing on which it existed. So, according to him, the form of an orange exists within each orange, rather in the world of oranges (Melchert, 35). ...
Not exactly what you need?