ARISTOTLE REALISM IN HIS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

Similar to idealism, realism is also one of the oldest philosophies in western culture and its origin began with the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) in ancient Greece. Being a longtime star student of Plato, he elaborated on the idealist view of reality being based on ideas and not matter. He thought that a proper study of matter could lead to better and more distinct ideas.

After twenty years as a student and teacher at Plato’s Academy, Aristotle opened his own school called the Lyceum wherein he developed his philosophical differences with Plato. Although he had his own views, the basis of Aristotelian realism is found within Plato’s idealism. In these regards, Aristotle never broke free of his influence..

Aristotle realism in His Philosophy of Education

Aristotelian realism is based on the principle that ideas (or forms) can exist without matter, but no matter can exist without form. Aristotle claimed that each piece of matter has universal and particular properties. For example, all people are different in their properties. We all have different shapes and sizes and no two are alike. We do all share something universal called “humanness.” This universal quality is certainly real because it exists independently and regardless of any one person. Aristotle called this quality a universal form (idea or essence), which is a nonmaterial aspect of each single material object that relate to all other objects of that group.

In his second principle, Aristotle thought that the forms of things, the universal properties of objects, remain constant and never change, but that particular components do change. Individual humans change through growth and then die, but humanness would remain because universal forms are constant.

In his third principle, Aristotle believed that design and order are present in the universe and thus, all things happen in an orderly fashion. As mentioned, the destiny of a kitten is to become a cat, a child to become a human adult. This process is unchangeable and constant like their universal forms. Thus, we can understand the universe by studying its purposes. However, Aristotle pointed out that humans have a free will to think. If we refuse to think or think poorly, then we go against our design and creation and suffer the consequences of wrong ideas, poor health and unhappiness.

This fourth principle is illustrated by his idea of the soul as an entity to be kept in balance. He believed there are three aspects of the soul called vegetative, animative and rational. Vegetative represents doing too little or inactivity. Animative means the other extreme of too much as in anger and hostility. However, when one uses reason to keep the other two aspects in harmony, they are following the true path of design and purpose.

This union is further illustrated by Aristotle’s conception of the Four Causes:

1. The Material Cause: the matter from which something is made

2. The Formal Cause: the design that shapes the material object

3. The Efficient Cause: the agent that produces the object

4. The Final Cause: the direction toward which the object is tending

These causes can be attributed to building anything. One needs materials to build, a design or blueprint, the builder and finally the result.

The sixth principle is Aristotle’s belief that matter is always in process and moving to some end. This is similar to the modern view of evolution and the idea of an open-ended universe. However, the difference between them is he saw this movement headed to a final end. The universe was open-ended to a certain point. He believed in an Ultimate Reality to be the power and creator that controlled the process of matter. This entity is the final end beyond all matter and form. In this regard, Aristotle’s philosophy is as esoteric as Plato’s. He saw this Ultimate Reality as a logical explanation for the order of the universe and as its principle organizer and operator.

This method is deductive which means it reaches truth from generalizations starting with the major premise. One problem with this method is that if either o f the premises is false, the conclusion may be false. The chance of an unproven general premise is greater than starting with a specific fact. The syllogism runs contrary to his insistence that we can better understand form (general principle) by studying specific material objects.

The final principle is his belief of the chief good, which is happiness. This depends on a virtuous and well-ordered soul. To achieve this, one has to develop habits of virtue that are shaped through the proper education. As mentioned, moderation through the Golden Mean is the key. This would result in assisting the state in producing good citizens with the proper social development. In Politics, Aristotle mentioned that a reciprocal relationship exists between the properly educated person and properly educated citizen.

Conclusion

Finally, he felt the main agencies of education are the family and church. The state or organized society is much less important. The family and church have the responsibility to teach moral and divine law. The state should enforce such law and respect the privacy of home and church.

Modern realism developed out of the need to correct the failure of deductive reasoning (recall the syllogism).

Although classicists had developed the thesis that reality, knowledge and value can be discovered through studying particulars; the problem of working with a general major premise caused false conclusions. With the arrival of the scientific revolution, many philosophers applied themselves to the task of developing an adequate method of inductive reasoning.

Reference

“Philosophy of Education”. highered.mheducation.com. Retrieved 2018-06-27.

“SHIPS – Philosophy | Stanford Graduate School of Education”. ed.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-29.

Noddings, Nel (1995). Philosophy of Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 1.

Frankena, William K.; Raybeck, Nathan; Burbules, Nicholas (2002). “Philosophy of Education”. In Guthrie, James W. Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edition. New York,