Aristoltle Vs. Plato

Aristotle and Me

I found reading Aristotle easier than reading Plato. Aristotle's thoughts were more convincing too, as he focuses on the types and divisions of any issue he had mentioned. The way he presented his thoughts was flexible that the reader could understand them according to his mentality, because he explains one idea in different ways and elaborations, so it could fit several kinds of reader's understanding.

In treating poetry, in my opinion, Aristotle was more reasonable than Plato, in Book III, chapter 2 Aristotle said: "The poetic style is hardly flat, but it is not appropriate for speech." I understood that Aristotle was not against poetry, but he has a point that the usage of the words and expressions in poetry are often not used in daily conversations as he focused on types of public speaking. Moreover, that poetry is admired by people because they usually admires unfamiliar things. As for me, I do like unfamiliar things, but I find poetry a reflection of one's inside speech, and I accept how the inside of poets presented in words.

The difference between arts in media were fully understandable. It gave me a chance to think more maturely about what is on the media in the past and in today as well.

As for persuasion and judgment which are concerned with rhetoric, as Aristotle said in Book I and Book II, about persuasion: "persuasion occurs through the arguments when we show the truth or the apparent truthÐ'...", and about judgment "It is necessary not to look to the argument, but also to construct a view of himself as a certain type of person and to prepare the judgeÐ'...". Those quotations I most agree and believe since he presented many possibilities, elaborations and definitions then.

I barely understand philosophy, but I fairly understood Aristotle, and I agree with most of his thoughts

...