Name: Idris
Question: Critically compare Plato’s form of the good with Aristotle’s prime mover.
AO1 Candidates may demonstrate knowledge and understanding through the use of some of the
following materials:
Aim for between 6-10 bullet points
 Plato’s form of the good: ultimate end in itself, all other forms participate in it/are
illuminated by it (sun analogy) and are therefore good, enables people to perceive Forms
(sight analogy).
 Prime Mover: pure thought (theoria), immaterial/transcendent, eternal, deism/detached, is
a leader and is in the order of the universe, no plan and knows nothing of anything but itself,
immutable/unmoved, redundant (everything depends on it but it’s disinterested).
 Similar: absolutely good (form of good is ideal goodness/highest; prime mover is pure
actuality so perfect), immaterial/transcends this world, eternal (form of good exists in
eternal realm of forms; prime mover is just part of an eternal universe that already exists
and that has no beginning; neither is a creator), both are immutable (prime mover is
unmoved; form of good is absolute because “everything tangible flows”), absolute/pure
(pure goodness/form of forms; pure actuality), no empirical evidence/known through
reason, defines reality (good illuminates everything; prime mover is the final cause which
comprises the essence of something), deism.
 Different: morality (form of good is distinctly moral therefore a bit closer to the theistic god
than prime mover); prime mover is disinterested in anything and cannot have knowledge of
morality that applies to us), interaction (form of good illuminates but material things are not
attracted to it; prime mover material things are attracted towards it as a telos),
consciousness (prime mover is theoria and a being, good has no consciousness and is not a
being.
AO2 Candidates may demonstrate evaluation and analysis through the use of some of the following
arguments.
Aim for between 6-10 bullet points
Form of good > prime mover
 PRIME MOVER WEAK
 Prime mover is the telos of everything but even if everything acts towards a purpose it
doesn’t mean it is the same purpose or that there is a unified telos for the whole – fallacy of
composition. Aristotle’s example of the bronze statue of Athena shows how individual
objects can have final causes but this does not apply to universe as a whole
 Edwin Hubble found in the 1920s that there are countless galaxies beyond the milky way;
big bang theory, an ever-expanding universe that has a beginning and no fixed telos.
 Aristotle focuses on materialism yet recourses to a being that transcends space and time and
cannot be known through sense experience.
 Aquinas: If something didn’t come to be (aka first cause), then it has no reason for existing,
so we cannot rationally conclude it exists – there cannot be an uncaused causer.
 Why is it conscious??? There’s no justifications behind why the final cause is a being but the
formal cause isn’t, when objects are moving towards both.

 4 causes don’t fully explain abstract concepts and emotions; plato explains their reality
better
 FORM OF GOOD BETTER
 If Forms are seen as an ideal standard then it is likely that these Forms are to be bound
together by their own ideal, that of goodness. Makes sense because good is an intrinsically
ideal quality aka the form of forms
 it can be argued that all things must emanate from one point, source or ideal. How else,
plato argues, can we categorise mutable material objects and images? “everything tangible
flows” heraclitus “no man ever steps into the same river twice”
 Bryan Magee “the theory that there is another world other than this…gives value and
meaning to our present world”
Prime Mover > Form of good
 FORM OF GOOD IS WEAK
 A.J. Ayer plato has ‘primitive superstition’ in calling ‘good’ a noun. good is just an expression
of our emotional reaction to something; it’s not knowledge
 Karl popper: in a world of continual change, we cannot find any constant let alone ideal form
of good
 Dawkins- it’s nonsense to make judgements about a metaphysical world; all we can know is
the physical
 How can the form of good participate in things that are amoral? It’s easy to see goodness in
justice, beauty, truth etc, but not in lower forms and material objects – there’s no intrinsic
goodness in the form of a tree or of blueness.
 No empirical evidence of forms; John Locke – humans are born as blank slates (tabula rasa)
with no inate knowledge. Reason can’t providenew knowledge; it just interprets/processes
sense exp.
 Kant- We can’t gain new knowledge from pure reason, the “severe and fruitless labour” of
asking from reason what is beyond its capabilities (so cave analogy is weak). Reason is
actually obscuring rather than enhancing our knowledge of reality, phenomenal vs
noumenal world.
 Plato argues “the journey upwards is the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world” but
this is elitist
 Plato’s cave analogy in which the freed prisoner returns to the cave upon seeing the sun
(form of good) posits that a priori understanding of the form of the good is a complete
“turning of the soul”; it drives him to practise and implement the good e.g. he knows how
the prisoners should live, and returns to the cave. But this is an is-ought fallacy: just because
something is good, doesn’t suggest you ought to do it, especially since plato conceives of the
good as a noun, it is definitely not an imperative.
 PRIME MOVER IS BETTER
 Things do change and all actual states require the object first to have potential
 Empiricism is more reliable and corresponds with the scientific method
Conc: both are things we can’t empirically verify, at least plato justifies the existence of an
immaterial absolute through a rationalist approach; aristotle’s empiricism is insufficient and
inappropriate justification for concluding a prime mover