Metaphysics

Introduction

Naturally, man is inquisitive. He always tries to explore the reality since his birth. The principle of religious, scientific theories and ideas of philosophy is consequences of this human's curiosity. This searching of reality is not new, it is quite old one, but the journey of exploring reality must be quite old.

Plato's Theory

Plato explained the resemblance between two material objects in the means of combine participation in a common form. As a red flower and a red book, for instead, in virtue the resemblance between each other is redness. However, the redness is the form and the both material object are the imitations of this form, which shows their resemblance. Aristotle argued that this resemblance that exists between redness form and red material object must be explained in the means of another form. What form is the form of redness and a red object both imitated to account for their similarity? One could find that this would lead to an enormous return.

Whenever, one person argues that two objects are similar and copy to each other, you should have the enough explanation about the similarities between the object materials and forms. It would be required another form. The term of imitation and a copy are being proposed in the forms of Plato's theory that led numerous difficulties in logic. Plato did not explain anything about the similarities of the objects, and forms and another form are must be existed beyond someone's proposed theory. The need of another form means that to explain the similarity between the forms of a man and a man, we need third man to interpret the similar characteristics. The explanations of factual similarities are never given; it is only putting off to the next level or stage.

Aristotle's criticism

There are numerous points where Aristotle has a conflict with the Plato's metaphysical reflections. Aristotle believed that the form of Plato's theory was not clearly explained. He said his forms were failed with its two different realms; he failed to explain that what his meant to explain. The permanence and the order in “this” world were two major failures of his forms, and how an individual can have knowledge of “this” world. Aristotle elaborated this general criticism into two more specific objections:



The Obscurity of the Notion of Participation or Imitation

Materials are objected to imitate or participate in the forms, according to Plato's philosophy. This relation is a virtue to the forms of the realm that physical materials are cognizable and have order. However, Aristotle argued in alpha that it is not possible to define what imitations or participation are exact (Richard, Sterling, &Scott, 115). The form properties are unchangeable, eternal, transcendent etc, and these all are not compatible with objectivity of material. Aristotle criticized with a beautiful some questions that;

1 How can a white object be participated or imitated the forms of whiteness?

2 Is the whitening of a white object itself?

3 How can an object be white without anything which is already white?

4 What are the ...