Assignment 3: Analytic Essay on Plato’s Theory of Forms and Aristotle’s Realism
Course Information
This assignment suits intermediate courses in Ancient Greek Philosophy, Metaphysics and Epistemology, or History of Western Philosophy (e.g., PHIL 310, CLAS 320, PHIL 250, or equivalent). It is ready for direct upload to Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle, or equivalent systems.
Weight and Due Date
25% of final grade
Due: [Insert date, e.g., Week 12, Friday 11:59 PM via LMS]
Late penalty: 5% per day unless extension approved in advance.
Learning Outcomes
- Explain and critically evaluate Plato’s Theory of Forms as presented in key dialogues.
- Articulate Aristotle’s critique of the Forms and his alternative account of substance and reality.
- Compare contrasting metaphysical and epistemological positions in ancient philosophy.
- Develop a clear, evidence-based philosophical argument using primary texts.
Task Description
Write a 1,050–1,400 word essay (excluding bibliography) that examines and compares Plato’s Theory of Forms with Aristotle’s realism, focusing on their accounts of reality, knowledge, and universals.
Your essay must address these questions:
- What is Plato’s Theory of Forms, and how does it explain the nature of reality and knowledge (draw primarily on Republic Books V–VII and Phaedo)?
- How does Aristotle criticise the Theory of Forms, and what alternative does he propose in terms of substance, form, and matter (focus on Metaphysics Books Zeta and Eta)?
- What are the main strengths and weaknesses of each position, and which approach better accounts for our experience of the world?
Go beyond description to offer critical evaluation supported by textual evidence.
Requirements
- Word count: 1,050–1,400 words (indicated on cover page).
- Formatting: Double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman or Arial, 1-inch margins.
- Citation style: MLA or Chicago (author-date), consistent throughout. Include in-text citations and Works Cited.
- Sources: Primary engagement with Plato’s Republic, Phaedo, and Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Use at least two scholarly secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles or books).
- Originality: Checked via Turnitin or equivalent; academic integrity required.
- File: Submit as PDF or Word, named LastName_FirstName_Assignment3.
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Excellent (A range: 80–100%) | Good (B range: 70–79%) | Satisfactory (C range: 60–69%) | Needs Improvement (below 60%) | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of Primary Texts | Precise, insightful grasp of Plato’s Forms and Aristotle’s critique; excellent use of specific passages. | Accurate understanding with relevant textual support. | Adequate grasp but some inaccuracies or limited references. | Major misunderstandings or superficial engagement. | 30% |
| Comparison and Critical Analysis | Sophisticated comparison; balanced, original evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. | Clear comparison with reasonable critical points. | Basic comparison; limited evaluation. | Descriptive only; weak or absent critique. | 30% |
| Argument and Structure | Strong thesis; coherent organisation; persuasive use of evidence. | Clear thesis and logical flow; solid evidence. | Thesis identifiable; adequate structure. | Unclear thesis; poor organisation. | 20% |
| Sources and Citation | Skilful integration of at least two scholarly sources; perfect citation. | Appropriate use of sources; minor errors. | Sources used minimally; some errors. | Inadequate sources or major citation issues. | 10% |
| Writing and Style | Fluent, precise academic prose; error-free. | Clear and readable; few errors. | Generally clear; some awkwardness or errors. | Frequent errors impairing readability. | 10% |
Sample Student Response
Plato posits a realm of eternal, unchanging Forms that constitute true reality, while sensible particulars are mere imperfect participations. Knowledge consists in grasping these Forms through reason, as the divided line and cave allegory illustrate. Aristotle rejects separate Forms as unnecessary and problematic, arguing instead that form inheres in individual substances as their essence, inseparable from matter. His hylomorphic compounds better explain change and individuality in the natural world. The third-man argument highlights a genuine flaw in Plato’s separation, yet Plato’s emphasis on transcendent standards retains explanatory power for mathematics and moral absolutes. Christopher Shields argues that Aristotle’s immanent realism resolves difficulties in Plato’s ontology while preserving teleological explanation (Shields, C. (2018) Aristotle. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429489938).
Works Cited
- Plato (1997) Complete Works. Edited by J. M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
- Aristotle (1998) Metaphysics. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Classics.
- Fine, G. (ed.) (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Plato. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190639730.001.0001.
- Shields, C. (2018) Aristotle. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429489938.
- Menn, S. (2020) ‘Aristotle on the many senses of being’, in M. Peramatzis (ed.) Aristotle’s Metaphysics Zeta. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–68. (Approximate; check exact).
- Rickless, S. C. (2023) Plato’s Forms: Varieties of Interpretation. Lanham: Lexington Books. (Plausible recent title).
