The logic of today as construed by the common man is not the same as what is understood by logicians. Logic as understood by Socrates was to some extent influenced by the Pythagoreans since he practiced the dialectic methods in investigating the objectivity and authority of the different propositions.
Plato had further contributed to advancing the dialectic approach to logic in being highly impacted by the Pythagoreans and had further consolidated the basis for geometric evidence and its validity. Plato applied several logical dialogues and principles that were rudimentary. However Plato’s logical principles often confused the logical principles with metaphysical propositions, but since this was quite normal amongst the Greeks, Plato is not found to be at fault in this regard. As regards Aristotle, understanding of logic is found to have become different from the previous philosophical disciplines. Aristotle created his arguments in philosophy that could have valid inferences drawn and which proved to be highly popular during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The layman of today is yet not able to understand the philosophical notions behind knowledge. Inappropriately being in line with the sophist traditions, Socrates was quite a skeptic and disbeliever since it is difficult to identify his dialectic methods for assessment of the dialogues regarding his ideas of knowledge. This prevented the establishment of positive arguments and in this regard, Socrates is considered to have leveled negative arguments.
Plato is considered to be more articulate in this regard since he considered knowledge to be of immense priority in the World of Ideas. He claimed that knowledge should be understood as being a necessary and true belief because if two people have different opinions, they cannot both be true. Anything wrong cannot be called an entity of knowledge. Plato believed that one’s experience of a material thing cannot be taken as knowledge since the thing is only known as a frail combination of ideas. Aristotle was a realist regarding knowledge. However, he was not a realist as Plato was since he believed that people can know of the things that they sense, which essentially comprise of two elements; form and matter. Aristotle thought that knowledge can be obtained by simply having a conscious and controlled observation of the world.
Plato has appropriately explained his point of view on love in the context of ancient thought. His concept of love is expressed in his work titled Symposium in terms of his views as implied in the character of Diotima. In the role of Diotima, Plato expresses that love is beautiful and is achieved by using the beautiful things on this earth. Love is achieved by using fair forms, fair practices, and fair notions. From the stage of fair notions, one finally knows and understands the essence of beauty.
Regarding existence, Plato’s theory is closely related to his metaphysics. He developed the distinctions between illusion and reality and said that anything real cannot be changed and becomes eternal. Things that are just experienced as sensations are considered to be unreal. It was Aristotle who inaugurated the concept of existence as a discipline in his work Metaphysics, in which he outlined the categorization of the different senses and ways in which things can be taken to exist or not. Much against what Plato believed, Aristotle held that universals existed which do not influence the existence of particular things.