"Aristotle and Other Platonists:" A Review of the work of Lloyd Gerson (From "The Philosophy Forum")

[NewTestamentChristian]

This is a topic near and dear to my heart as I think that certain Christians canonize Aristotelianism and Thomism as the only way to understand the faith. According to Lloyd Gerson, Plato and Aristotle are not fundamentally opposed to each other, as I think Strict Observance Thomism likes to argue, but rather they complement each other. Interestingly enough, Scotism, founded by John Duns Scotus, can be said to be a synthesis of both Aristotle and Plato while Strict Observance Thomism goes against the very roots of Thomistic philosophy at large (i.e. Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Maimonides, Psuedo-Dionysius, Boethius, etc).

Lloyd Gerson’s Aristotle and Other Platonists is a thought-provoking work that challenges long-held assumptions about the relationship between Aristotle and Plato. Gerson in my opinion makes a compelling case that Aristotle, far from being an anti-Platonist as traditionally portrayed, should be seen as a kind of Platonist himself. Gerson begins by addressing the historical context in which Aristotle’s works were written, emphasizing the fluid intellectual environment of ancient Greece. He argues that the sharp division often drawn between Plato and Aristotle is a modern construct rather than a reflection of their true philosophical positions. Gerson asserts that Aristotle’s philosophy can be better understood as a continuation and development of Platonic themes rather than a complete departure from them.

One of the key strengths of Gerson’s work is his detailed comparative analysis of the core doctrines of Plato and Aristotle. He examines their views on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, highlighting numerous points of convergence. For example, Gerson explores how Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover can be seen as an adaptation of Plato’s theory of the Forms, rather than a rejection of it. Similarly, he discusses how Aristotle’s ethical theory retains a teleological framework that is deeply rooted in Platonic thought. Therefore, I like to think that only a true Platonist can grasp the work of Aristotle and a true Aristotelian is interested in the "mysticism" of Platonism. The overall text in my eyes makes the argument that Plato and Aristotle are supposed to complement each other rather than contradict. Gerson also tackles the interpretative challenges posed by Aristotle’s critiques of Plato, suggesting that these criticisms are often more nuanced than they appear. He posits that Aristotle’s objections are directed at specific aspects of Plato’s formulations rather than at the underlying principles. This approach allows Gerson to present a more integrated view of ancient philosophy, where the lines between different schools of thought are more blurred and interconnected. Gerson’s reinterpretation of the relationship between Aristotle and Plato invites readers to reconsider the foundations of Western philosophical tradition. His book is not only a valuable resource for scholars but also for anyone interested in the enduring dialogue between these two towering figures of ancient thought.

 

[public hermit]

Thanks to @zippy2006 I read Gerson's From Plato to Platonism back around 2019-20. In that work, he takes a similar approach with his construct, Ur-Platonism which is basically what follows if you mirror-read what Platonism usually rejects. I think the idea is, if you know what Platonists reject, you also know what they affirm, and that gets you close to the core of Plato. It's been years since I read it, though. I think he also covers some of his thoughts on how Plato and Aristotle are not at odds, as well. I guess the idea is Aristotle rejects similar things as Plato, so they are not that different in meaningful ways.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks to @zippy2006 I read Gerson's From Plato to Platonism back around 2019-20.

The related thread was, "Ur-Platonism, Naturalism, and Atheism."

 

[com7fy8]

Well, I just read a little bit about what Aristotle and Plato actually believed. One interesting item is the thing about Plato's FORMS and Aristotle's forms.

Plato seems to say we can have a FORM in our minds about a thing. It is an ideal of what a physical thing can be. For example, in our minds we can have a FORM of what a woman is. And this is our ideal and to this we compare each woman we see and maybe share with. Something like this.

But this seems like a secular way of experiencing, with us humans being our own gods who can create our own imaginary things, to which we compare outward things.

What God is concerned about is how Jesus His own Son is. Jesus is the One to whom we are compared. And God is working in us His children to *con*-form us to the image of Jesus. This is what needs our main attention, versus being so busy with comparing things and people of this life to what we imagine we want and maybe would rather have.

Now, Aristotle seems to have been a student of Plato, and he went a different way from Plato's FORMs idea. But it, still, seems secular.

So, what I get from this is we need to not be so busy with evaluating if outward things suit our fancy. Instead, our attention needs to be to how our character is becoming like Jesus in His love . . . or not. And other stuff might be some . . . form . . . of seeking knowledge of good and evil so we can stay busy and tangled and even mangled with being experts about all the wrong and inferior stuff of this world.

Our attention needs to be to God, instead.

And they seem to talk about what makes us able to be happy and have a pleasant life. There is the idea that a person needs to have virtue in order to be happy. Well . . . again it seems the attention goes to what humans can get our own selves to understand and how we can get ourselves to become. But God . . . is able to change us to be not only happy for our own selves, but pleasing to Him like His own Son in us is so pleasing to our Father and in us can make us more and more sharing with Him in how He is so pleasing to God. And this is very pleasant and soul-resting and soul-soothing, how Jesus has us becoming.

So, from the little I saw, I suspect Plato and Aristotle are secular, observing how secular humans can function. And, like how Aristotle went a different way from his teacher, Plato . . . humans secular can split up as they individually invent imaginary *but subjective* forms and ideas and desires and preferences for how to get pleasure.