Alan Code
Aristotle’s Understanding of Plato
Goal: It is necessary to understand the views that Plato held, specifically through Aristotle’s
account of him, in order to completely understand the differences in views between Plato and
Aristotle.
 To develop Aristotle’s account of Plato, Code uses Aristotle’s remarks in regards to
Platonism.
 Code states that “the ‘Plato’ of this paper is seen through Aristotle’s eyes,” meaning that
the version of Plato which he will describe will not be complete because he is only
attempting to understand the views that Aristotle may have been referring to (423).
Discrepancies between ‘Plato’ and Plato
1. “Plato’s philosophy had a development, and so the position considered in this paper at
best represents a single stage of that development” (424).
2. “Some of the tenets of ‘Plato’ may be dialectical accretions-details and refinements made
when trying to put the best face possible on the theory being investigated” (424).
3. “In an aporematic treatment one develops certain strands of a predecessor’s thought while
ignoring or slighting others” (424).
4. “Aristotle makes use of his own technical vocabulary in describing and criticizing Plato”
(424).
5. “Aristotle believed that some of Plato’s views were inconsistent” (424).
 Code states that it would take much more work to analyze Aristotle’s understanding of
Plato, but there is a position to which Aristotle responded which he will discuss.
Plato on Being and Having






To understand Plato’s theories, Code begins by explaining the Socratic principle, which
serves as a foundation for Plato’s views.
Code states that Socrates’ question “What Is X?” is important, especially when he states
it as the Socratic Principle.
Socratic Principle: “If X Has Y, then the definition of Y is L-predicable of X” (425).
Next Code uses Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, to explain the Platonic Principle, which is
similar to Socrates’ yet more complex.
Platonic Principle: “If a particular X Has a Form Y, then the definition of Y is not
L-predicable of X” (425).
The Platonic Principle introduces Plato’s Theory of the Forms, which Code elaborates on
when he says, “Plato believed that many F particulars are all deficient in being ‘such as’
the F itself, and that striving to be such, the none the less fall short” (426). This is where
universals and particulars are distinguished from one another.
Plato believed that there existed a realm of separable Being, one which is not that of
existence, but he claims does exist. This is what would be called the Realm of the Forms.
Plato’s realm of separable Being consists of “objects about which one askes the Socratic
‘What Is X?’ question,” and X is supposed to be the “sole bearer of its definition” (426).
Example: the Form beautiful is the only thing that Is truly beautiful, anything else
is a particular.

Code explains that Plato could run into a problem when speaking of particulars,
specifically Code gives the example of the word “Helen” which refers to a particular.
How could the Form beauty be attributed to a particular?
Plato accounts for this issue by stating that particulars can Have qualities of other Forms
 Code then argues that Aristotle would see Plato’s views and would say that the Form
beauty Is beauty, while any other example of beauty simply Has beauty. He also claims
that Aristotle argues against the idea of all universals as separable Forms. If adding in the
Platonic Principle, when speaking of Socrates, it could not be said that Socrates Is a man,
but instead it would be said that he Has or participates in man.
Conclusion: Code says, “as long as Plato conflates ‘X is F’ with ‘X is F-ness’, and fails to
consider alternative interpretations of the copula, he will maintain that F-ness alone is F”
(429). He states that Plato has simply stated that all adjectives are forms and has treated them
as names when attributing them to objects, while also not acknowledging the distinction
between this and this-ness. Code states this to be an issue with Plato’s theory which he notes
that Aristotle has acknowledged.