The nature of goodness is distinctly disparate between Plato and Aristotle. Plato argues for a higher form of goodness, while Aristotle argues for a societal form of goodness. Aristotle's view of goodness is much more realistic to the real world and it refutes Plato's belief that goodness is eternal, essential and universal. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Plato presents a dualistic view of goodness. His goodness is an absolute form above society and its interactions. Plato concludes his allegory of the cave: "...the whole soul must be turned away from this changing world, until its eye can bear to contemplate reality and that supreme splendor which we have called the Good" ( Republic 232). He obviously holds goodness in high regard and as a separate entity from society, making it a dualistic view. He calls a person to seek good by turning away from society because society is analogous to the cave of his allegory; this person must emerge into the light to seek goodness. Plato believes that goodness exists outside of society and is an intangible form, but is attainable through careful and meticulous thinking, as evidenced by Plato's allegorical prisoner striving for the blinding light: goodness. For Plato, knowledge is real; the highest form of this knowledge is goodness. This is illustrated by the light in his allegory: “…would not looking at the glow of the fire itself hurt his eyes” (Republic 229). Continuing his allegory of the cave, Plato illustrates how the light of a fire can reveal a distorted view of the environment, or of the truth. Goodness is sought as the prisoner emerges and sees the truth of the world in full light, the sun. There, the sun illuminates everything with a clear and radiant vision, giving the prisoner a complete sense of the world, of the truth. Aristotle, however, illustrates a relativistic view of goodness. Aristotle offers a contrasting view of goodness by asserting that it exists within the bounds of society and therefore without society there would be no goodness. Aristotle's goodness is illustrated when the actions "doing these things to the right person, in the right measure, at the right time, with the right motive and in the right way, is not what everyone can do, and is by no means easy…doing good is rare and praiseworthy” (Ethics 363). Goodness is determined by actions taken in society. This is relativism since there are many actions in the world. Both philosophers view goodness as a rather difficult tribute to achieve, but it is the physical and metaphysical nature of goodness that gives rise to the discrepancy between Plato and Aristotle. Plato strongly disagrees with Aristotle by stating, "It should be a matter of knowledge, not of personal experience" when describing the qualities that make the best judge in a court of law, meaning that knowledge is much more precious as action (Republic 90). Plato's goodness wants to illustrate the only truth which is the knowledge of action. Aristotle's goodness, however, is more realistic because it offers a flexible definition of goodness for an ever-changing world. This effectively contradicts the Platonic view of goodness since it expands Plato's goodness and makes it exist in society, not far away and above it. Aristotle refutes Plato with his physical definition of goodness due to the constant change of this world. A higher form of goodness cannot realistically withstand time. The time beingnow presented as an important factor in goodness, Plato considers goodness to be eternal. Plato presents his supreme form of goodness as eternal by declaring: “This then, which gives to the objects of knowledge their truth and to him who knows them his power of knowledge, is the Form or essential nature of Goodness” (Republic 220). ). The nature of goodness according to Plato must be eternal because he claims that it produces truth, which is immutable, and therefore goodness must not change through time according to his definition since a Form, such as beauty, will be this form perpetually. Plato further asserts that goodness lies solely in the natural function of an object or person: “more work is easier and better done…the only thing for which he is naturally fitted” (Republic 57). This is Plato's definition of virtue, a being must have only one function presented to it by goodness. He believes that this function is the only truth that remains true regardless of time. Aristotle, however, proves that goodness is not eternal. Aristotle argues that goodness is linked to the function of an object or person through his analogy with artists: "For just as the goodness and excellence of a piper or a sculptor , or of the practitioner of any art, and generally of those who have any talent, the function in business lies in that function, so that the good of man seems to lie in his function” (Ethics 353). Aristotle asserts that the function of an object possesses goodness. A man is surely temporary and changes frequently, so his goodness is not eternal. Goodness was described as the form revealing to an object its function by Plato or goodness as the function of an object by Aristotle. The function of an object can change; a hammer can drive a nail into a house, but with a simple turn of its head it can knock out the same nail it just drove into. Thus, according to Aristotle, goodness is not eternal. If the function of an object can change, then goodness in Plato's definition must change in order to reveal a new truth since it was defined by an object having only one function. Aristotle's view is simply more attuned to the real world than Plato's. Certainly, the function of an object, its goodness, is best understood when it is used in the correct situation, time and place for that function to be demonstrated, as the hammer illustrates. He can also dig in and pull out nails, so his goodness will change, so goodness is not forever. Plato insists on essential goodness, but Aristotle demonstrates that goodness is not entirely necessary for functioning and living. Plato states in his metaphor of the sun: "...you may have the power of vision in your eyes and try to use it...but sight will see nothing and colors will remain invisible in the absence of a third thing" (Republic 218). This “third thing” is undoubtedly the sun; Plato argues that goodness is necessary and the path to truth. He metaphorically compares goodness to the sun, asserting that vision is caused by the sun, as truth is caused by goodness. Plato further states that education and upbringing are necessary for a person to realize goodness, stating, "I prefer to call this the only thing that is sufficient: education and upbringing" (Republic 114). For Plato, education is necessary in order to seek one's essential goodness, so education must also be essential. Aristotle, however, argues that goodness is not essential for the individual when he states: "...what is called the function of a man in any profession and the function of a man who is good in thisprofession are generically the same” (Ethics 354). Aristotle argues that goodness does not matter when talking about how a person performs a function, it is essential to refute Plato's idea of ​​goodness. This leaves room for a person to perform a function poorly and in disrepair. It also illustrates how the goodness of any being lies simply in its nature: “…man has no business or function assigned to him by nature? Much more, because its different members… each clearly have its own function” (Ethics 353). For Aristotle, no education or education is necessary to simply realize the goodness that already exists naturally in an individual. Goodness is described as an essential entity in the world, by Plato, and also as a simple object function that is not critical, by Plato. Aristotle. Aristotle illustrates how goodness itself is inessential. In reality, a person or an object can perform a function, regardless of the quality of its execution. “Good is beneficial”, according to Plato’s definition, will therefore never produce evil; Yet people function in ways that are considerably bad, so goodness is not essential to an individual's functioning (Republic 71). By observing the real world and realizing that there is certainly something wrong with it, Plato contradicts himself. An essential goodness would not allow a bad function to be carried out. One could argue from Plato's side that a poorly functioning individual has not yet realized goodness, but this individual is operating at a certain level, so it would be wrong to claim that an absence of goodness prevents him from functioning. Furthermore, goodness does not need to be educated since it is inessential in itself. Goodness resides within a person due to function according to Aristotle's standard, but goodness is not entirely essential since goodness in function resides only in noble actions. Inessential kindness seems tragic, but it truly allows people to be themselves. It is more realistic to be inessential because it allows humans to make mistakes and practice more freely while continuing to live. Plato's goodness is universal and independent of society, but Aristotle reveals how goodness is completely relative to the situation. According to Plato's definition of goodness, there is only one goodness that casts truth into the world. He believes: “…Goodness itself…corresponding to each of these sets of many things, we postulate a single real Form or essence” (Republic 218). Plato argues that goodness is universal because there is a single, all-encompassing goodness that illuminates truth. This implies that there is only one truth for everything, without situation dependence. He believes that the same goodness will reveal the truth of an object in every situation. Instead of a single function and action in any situation, Aristotle argues with situational ethics to illustrate how goodness depends purely on the situation and is completely relative. He illustrates this ideal by quantifying his doctrine of the average: “By equal or just amount, I mean an average amount, or that which lies between excess and deficit” (Ethics 359). For Aristotle, there is no universality of good; with this assertion, he pushes the doctrine of the average: there is always an average in any situation since there are opposite extremes which contain it. Certainly, different situations call for different functions. This is where Aristotle’s virtue comes in: “…the virtue or excellence of a thing causes that thing…to fulfill its function well” (Republic 359). In different situations, Aristotle's virtue allows us to act in the best possible way since the..