“Plato’s form of the good makes more sense than Aristotle’s Prime Mover” Critically assess this
view.
Introduction
Form of the Good- The Highest form in the realm of appearances.
Prime Mover- Aristotle’s God which is the concept of the ultimate cause of movement and change in
the universe.
Importance- Both offer sensible and comprehendible understandings of a higher being and how
reality can be understood.
Judgement- Plato’s form of the good makes more sense.
Paragraph 1
Point: Plato Form of the Good makes less sense.
Argument: The Form of the Good, in Plato’s understanding, is the highest form in the realm of
appearances which illuminates all other forms and gives them value. It is seen as the purest and
most abstract of the Forms which is the furthest away from the physical world.
It encourages people to seek the truth, if people aimed for the form of the good they would make
better moral decisions (according to Plato). The Form of the good provides absolute moral rules so
goodness isn’t subjective like Aristotle asserts that it is.
Counter-argument: Good has so many meanings, the criteria of good is set by context. There is no
empirical evidence for the forms. Karl Popper says Plato wants to find certainty in an uncertain
world- just because he wants it does not mean he can create a whole second realm for certainty to
exist.
Paragraph 2
Point: Aristotle’s prime mover makes less sense.
Argument: The Prime mover is Aristotle’s version of God- the ultimate final cause. It is something
that everything is drawn to. It is the unchanging cause of everything that exists; it causes motion and
change in the universe without being moved itself. The Prime Mover is eternal and so must be both
necessary and necessarily good.
The Prime mover seems unclear about how it relates to the universe and an unrealistic creator,
Modern science suggests that the universe is ever- expanding rather than being attracted in to
something as Aristotle suggests. Not everything has to have a cause, some things can just be
considered a ‘brute fact’ (Russell). We may just see purpose when actually it is random- As Dawkins
calls evolution, ‘The Blind Watchmaker’. Purpose is being found where it does not necessarily exist.
Humans have purpose, the universe does not.
Paragraph 3
view.
Introduction
Form of the Good- The Highest form in the realm of appearances.
Prime Mover- Aristotle’s God which is the concept of the ultimate cause of movement and change in
the universe.
Importance- Both offer sensible and comprehendible understandings of a higher being and how
reality can be understood.
Judgement- Plato’s form of the good makes more sense.
Paragraph 1
Point: Plato Form of the Good makes less sense.
Argument: The Form of the Good, in Plato’s understanding, is the highest form in the realm of
appearances which illuminates all other forms and gives them value. It is seen as the purest and
most abstract of the Forms which is the furthest away from the physical world.
It encourages people to seek the truth, if people aimed for the form of the good they would make
better moral decisions (according to Plato). The Form of the good provides absolute moral rules so
goodness isn’t subjective like Aristotle asserts that it is.
Counter-argument: Good has so many meanings, the criteria of good is set by context. There is no
empirical evidence for the forms. Karl Popper says Plato wants to find certainty in an uncertain
world- just because he wants it does not mean he can create a whole second realm for certainty to
exist.
Paragraph 2
Point: Aristotle’s prime mover makes less sense.
Argument: The Prime mover is Aristotle’s version of God- the ultimate final cause. It is something
that everything is drawn to. It is the unchanging cause of everything that exists; it causes motion and
change in the universe without being moved itself. The Prime Mover is eternal and so must be both
necessary and necessarily good.
The Prime mover seems unclear about how it relates to the universe and an unrealistic creator,
Modern science suggests that the universe is ever- expanding rather than being attracted in to
something as Aristotle suggests. Not everything has to have a cause, some things can just be
considered a ‘brute fact’ (Russell). We may just see purpose when actually it is random- As Dawkins
calls evolution, ‘The Blind Watchmaker’. Purpose is being found where it does not necessarily exist.
Humans have purpose, the universe does not.
Paragraph 3
