Final answer:
Aristotle disagreed with Plato on the existence of forms, emphasizing the role of particulars. He argued that forms are embedded in material instances and that knowledge is grounded in sensory experiences and empirical investigation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aristotle, a student of Plato, presented several arguments to address his teacher's assertion of the existence of forms. He questioned how these immaterial forms could cause changes in material things and argued that without perceiving the particular instances of things, one cannot have knowledge of the form. For instance, whereas Plato suggested the ideal of beauty causes the beauty we perceive in objects, Aristotle maintained that beauty does not exist apart from the beautiful things themselves. The crucial distinction lies in Aristotle's focus on the particulars, indicating that the essence or form is embedded within each tangible instance of matter, rather than existing in a separate realm of ideal forms as Plato proposed.
Aristotle's approach was to seek a comprehensive understanding of the world by relying on sensory experiences and reason. His analyses included exploring the political realm and suggesting that empirical investigation can lead to improvements in human understanding and societal structures. In essence, Aristotle promoted a more empirical and practical approach to wisdom and governance opposed to Plato's idealistic vision.