‘Aristotle’s understanding of the soul and body is more coherent
than Plato’s.’ Discuss. (40 marks)
Aristotle’s (384-322BC) philosophical views differ drastically from those of his
teacher, Plato. This is especially true in examining both of their beliefs regard-
ing the relationship between the soul and body. Aristotle’s hylomorphic view
that the soul is the form of the body and inseparable from it, is a result of his
emphasis on empiricism, thus it would be simpler to facilitate the argument
that Aristotle’s understanding is more coherent. However, though Plato’s dual-
ist beliefs surrounding the soul are a priori and based on his Doctrine of Two
Worlds, it could be argued that this does not necessarily mean that Plato’s
ideas lack explanation nor coherency.
A highly convincing argument for the statement is that Aristotle’s understand-
ing of the soul and body is far more coherent and comprehensible than Plato’s,
because it is based upon logic. Aristotle’s beliefs pertain to empiricism and thus
centre upon human experience. Naturally, therefore, Aristotle’s ideas can be
logically understood by humans, whereas Plato’s a priori ideas are less compre-
hensible. In ‘De Anima’, Aristotle explains his view of the soul using three illus-
trations, one of which is stamping a wax tablet, as the impression made cannot
be separated from the stamp, just as the soul cannot be separated from the
body. An axe is also illustrated to demonstrate how the soul is closely related
to purpose as the soul of an axe is chopping, and a dead eye is illustrated to
show that the soul does not live on after death, because an eye that is dead
can no longer fulfil its purpose of sight. This argument is therefore convincing
as Aristotle gives an intelligible, coherent explanation as to how how an imma-
terial thing such as a soul can be linked to a body. Furthermore, Plato can be
criticised for failing to do this, as Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s dualism high-
lights the vagueness and incoherency of Plato’s beliefs. The World of Forms,
which Plato argues that the soul comes from and will return to after the physi-
cal death, is “nonsense talk” according to Aristotle, as it allows for there being
forms of trivial, unnecessary things such as colours. Moreover, Aristotle’s Third
Man argument shows that Plato does not address the fact that there are surely
forms of forms, which would lead to infinite regress. In contrast, the logicality
of Aristotle is only strengthened by Peter Geach, philosopher and Professor of
Logic, as he supports the Aristotelian belief that the body and soul are insepa-
rable, as he believes the body is essential in defining one’s identity, and that
the soul alone cannot represent the entire self.
However, a strong argument against the statement is that Plato’s understand-
ing of the soul being the real self, and the body being the “cause of wars and
factions and battles” (‘Phaedo’), is thoroughly evidenced and explained, thus it
is coherent despite being a priori. This can be seen through the notion of innate
ideas, evidenced by concepts like equality and justice, which humans have
never experienced yet can still understand and envision, thus ideas must exist
innately within humans, and come from the eternal World of Forms. This is sup-
ported by the mathematician Sir Roger Penrose, who argues that “whenever
the mind perceives a mathematical idea, it makes contact with Plato’s world of
mathematical concepts”, affirming that ideas like maths are innate and from
the World of Forms. This strengthens the argument as it shows that Plato’s du-
alist thought has evidence and even gives explanations for debated aspects of
