ARISTOTLE AND PLATO COMPARISON ESSAY – Part 2

ARISTOTLE AND PLATO COMPARISON ESSAY – Part 2

In response, Melissa should argue that soul is strongly supported by the physical existence; Mathew’s physical existence should, therefore, be extended although he will not be active in terms of physical capability. In other words, the idea of the soul is not a subject of proof; from the scientific point of view, the brain controls almost all the activities of the body, the destruction of one section of the brain cannot render an individual useless. There is no need for an individual to die when there are mechanisms that can be used to support life. In many instances, the concept of impending death and majorly depending on the continuous changes in the substantial circumstances. Death and depending merely on the dissociation and association of atoms. Applying the above idea to soul may be reasonable. In the same note, the dissociation of the human atoms or death is solely the obliteration of human body, a scenario that does not allow the soul to continue existing; Plato dismissed the above objection as the speculation; this again supports the idea of Melinda. Humans are immortal and death is only a passage of life from one state to the other, the idea of life after death, according to Plato is a valid concept since the antiquity.

There are several weaknesses that exist in Melinda’s perception of the natural existence. First, the existence of the soul is not a fact, it is clear that there is no substantial proof that can support the claim. Consequently, death is a natural process of dissociation of body atoms; it should not be done in an artificial manner to forcefully end one’s existence. Additionally, Melinda’s argument does not take into consideration, the scientific proofs; they are mere allegations from the religious and traditional points of view, which in many cases, may be misleading. Plato’s defense of existence is, therefore, an elaborate an ideological option of explaining Melinda’s thought.

According to Aristotle, the soul is an ideal realization or perfect expression of the natural body. In the same note, it can be concluded that there is a close relationship between the physiological processes and psychological states of the body.  Additionally, Aristotle stipulates that human mind or soul refers to the truth of the body, the substance whereby the only body conditions obtain their real meaning. The soul marks its activities in specific parts of the body organs, a scenario that corresponds to the various stages of biological development. As the human body undergoes development, the soul becomes more prominent in an individual existence.  The mind often remains in unity throughout the lifetime; therefore, when an individual dies, the soul that manifests in different body organ seizes to exist; this invalidates Melinda’s reasoning and supports Melissa’s thoughts. The body organs share diverse forms of senses which may be regarded as souls. Mathews being a human being with a brain and all the functioning body organs have soul which is interconnected to the organs, destroying his life will, therefore, means destroying the soul. The Melissa’s point of view is therefore valid according to Aristotle philosophical point of view. Destroying the life will lead to the subsequent destruction of the soul. Mathew’s life should be preserved at all cost even if it means using advanced artificial methods to sustain his existence. Aristotle perceives life in the scientific approach, most of his orientations are based on the factual ideas about the existence of every human being. According to Melissa’s argument, soul seizes to exist to exist the moment a person is dead; this thought is consistent with Aristotle’s philosophies. On the other hand, Melinda’s argument is consistent with the traditional and religious approaches; her ideas are therefore deeply rooted in the beliefs and faith without the substantial proofs. In response, Melissa should demand the proof of the existence of the soul in the body organs. According to the biological point of view, the physiological growth is only characterized by the atoms that are defined by various biological processes. During the formation of life, individual cells do not entail soul but rather, primitive components that only define life. Further, Plato may argue that every living thing has atoms i.e., they develop from primitive cells yet only human beings have the soul. Melinda should, therefore, make the comparison between human beings and the rest of creature in order to draw a meaningful reasoning about the Mathews situation. In defense to the Mathews situation, Melissa should stick to the evidence that Aristotle try to elaborate; the development of body organs is characterized by the presence of soul or senses that defines an individual. Mathews is still alive and the only section affected is the brain which controls some parts of the body, the rest of the organs are still functional, meaning that he still has the ability to live and even approach different life circumstances without necessarily using the damaged part of the brain. According to the above scenario, Melissa’s reasoning is consistent with Aristotle’s philosophical stance.