Aristotle the matter. However, the two disagreed

Aristotle and Plato theories
Visible forms, shapes, and appearance of substances remained constant over years until the philosophers came into the pictures. Thales is one of the first philosophers to notice the changes occurring in things.  Plato further explained the form theory in many of his discussions and speeches. Plate argued that object and living things have forms including human beings, mountains, animals, colors, courage, love, goodness, and happiness among others. The Plato’s form aimed at explaining things not only what something was but the composition. This paper discusses more about Plato and Aristotle contribution to form a theory. Additionally, this work examines Plato’s belief of the tripartite soul.
Aristotle and Plato discussed the forms in different ways, but the combination of both definitions brings out the subject better. Plato first wrote about forms in his book ‘The Republic’ while Aristotle composed his work of the forms later. Plato and Aristotle realized that sciences explain the existence of substances and matters only in parts. Philosophy, on the other hand, explained subjects in all spheres. While examining how philosophy and science differ in explaining the things, Aristotle and Plato found out about two important components of existence, the form, and the matter. However, the two disagreed on the relationship between form and matter.
Plato in the Republic argues that an intelligible realm exist which contains forms of things like good, beauty and justice. Plato says that the presentations of those aspects on earth are just weak reflections of the perfect forms that exist in the intelligible world. Plato feels that it is the mandate of the philosophers to examine and understand the forms. The concepts discussed by Plato are part of societal ethics but they were not the only forms is discussed. Plato also included geometry in his arguments saying that when students draw shapes, they look at the drawings and think of other things that look like the shapes.
Aristotle, on the other hand, investigated this topic on what is to and eventually disagreed with Plato on the same issue. Aristotle argues that things come to be from their smallest subjects called matter. He means that everything must have come from something before its existence either matter or material. He also added that forms are part of the existence of things. He illustrates form as the different shapes a matter takes and can be identified as different things, for instance, wood is used to make various types of furniture, or it can be used in constructing a house. The items are referred to as, wooden chair, wooden house among many. Aristotle explains that form does not need to come to be, but other things require a form to exist. Additionally, he states that most of the things need a combination of different forms and variety of matters to come into existence. For example, the chair needs the wood majorly to be formed but requires nails that connect various parts.
Aristotle the fundamental question is, can there be a form without matter?  For instance, can a chair exist without the wood? The answer is logical; the chair needs wood for it to exist. The chair needs the wood to exist, and therefore according to Aristotle, a form has to have a matter for it to exist. He thus concludes that form and matter must be present for something to exist. Aristotle idea differs from that of Plato because looking at Plato’s work the Republic; the form can exist without matter. Plato uses the meaning of form and matter interchangeably while Aristotle finds them very different. Aristotle concluded by saying that the difference between his theory and that of Plato was evident and that his approach discredited Plato’s argument. However, scholars did not agree with Aristotle, instead of finding the contradiction, they felt that the two theories complemented and added information to each. Other scholars believe that two explanations by both philosophers create a better understanding of form theory.
Considering the theory of the soul, Plato completed his method of the form by arguing that the soul was the most important thing in human existence. Plato supports his idea by saying that the body was only a hindrance to the success and development of the soul. Plato claimed that the soul fought the habits of the body so that it can be able to reach the realms of forms.  Plato discussed the soul in the three parts. The first was the appetite part which takes care of all the desires, the pleasures, comforts and all the physical body satisfaction. Once these desires are met, the body gives peace to the soul, and the vice versa is true. The second element of the soul is the spirited part of which gets emotional when an action takes place. The part of the soul that love, laughs, get angry, becomes happy, shows gratitude for other sensitive issues. The third part of the soul is the mind which determines what the person does. The part that is conscious about issues, it thinks, analyses situations, weighs opinions and makes decisions among other things.
Aristotle on the other hand, argues that the body and the soul cannot be separated. He states that the body shapes the soul and the soul, in turn, determines how the body progresses. According to him, what the body does influences the soul either positively or negatively. For instance, if the body is physically hurt, the person is sad, and the soul is affected adversely by the sadness, and the opposite is true.  Aristotle used the analogy of the imprint and wax to illustrate his ideas. Aristotle argues that the imprint and the wax can never be separated for they are part of each other. The same way he believed that there is no way the body and the soul could be separated. According to him, all forms of life have a soul that determines it’s just that the human soul is more predictable than another soul.
In summary, Aristotle was a student of Plato who learned a lot and developed his own ideas that contributed a lot to the field of philosophy. Plato wrote his book Republic that described form as a source of all existence. Plato focused more on values and ethics that build the human existence. Plato used to form and matter interchangeably to mean elements that contribute to the existence. Plato also refers to body and soul as two different entities affecting human existence differently. Aristotle differed with Plato’s ideas by arguing that all forms need matter for them to exist. He explains that matter and form cannot be separated; he also stated that the body and the soul could not be separated because they influence each other. The body cannot be without a soul neither can the soul live outside the body. Though the ideas of the two philosophers seem to differ slightly, the future scholars can research more on the ideas and combine them to up with a broader philosophical understanding of the ideal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bibliography
Adamson, Peter. “Philosophy Then: What Is Metaphysics Anyway?.” Philosophy Now 117 (2016)
Bloom, Allan, and Adam Kirsch. The Republic of Plato. Basic Books, 2016.
Hartman, Edwin. Substance, body, and soul: Aristotelian investigations. Princeton University Press, 2015.
Kamtekar, Rachana. Plato’s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism, the Divided Soul, and the Desire for Good. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Kraut, Richard. “Levels of Argument: A Comparative Study of Plato’s “Republic” and Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics.”.” (2016): 447-450.
Marmodoro, Anna. “The Powers of Aristotle’s Soul.” (2014): 174-178.

?