Abstract: Science is a profound human endeavor characterized by the acquisition of knowledge and a comprehensive process of inquiry. Rooted in history, this endeavor is based on the purpose of explaining the quantitative and qualitative phenomena of the external world. It originates with the fundamental question, “What is nature?” and has evolved into an investigation of the more specific and particular aspects of the universe in contemporary times. Plato and Aristotle, with their distinct inquiries into whether there can be a constant causality underlying the motion found in nature, laid the foundation for two fundamentally different cosmic designs. This study aims to expound and interpret the subject of nature and the science of the universe within the context of Plato’s theory of Forms and Aristotle’s theory of matter and form. Consequently, the primary objective is to elucidate the impact of these two divergent perspectives on the understanding of science. The secondary goal is to discern how the choices of subject, object, and methodology in their respective approaches influence the natural sciences and cosmic designs.

Keywords: Plato, Aristotle, universe, science, theory of Forms, theory of matter and form.

Distinct Cosmic Designs of Plato and Aristotle: 1.1. Plato’s Theory of Forms Plato’s theory of Forms holds a prominent place in the history of philosophy in the ancient world. According to this theory, reality resides in the world of ideal forms that transcends material existence. Ideas represent the reality of objects in the universe and are independent of matter. Plato believed in the existence of these ideal forms and contended that the objects in the universe are perfect replicas of these ideas. The role of Forms in nature constitutes the cornerstone of Plato’s cosmic understanding. To comprehend and explain reality, one must explore and comprehend the Forms. This notion shapes Plato’s conception of science; science is concerned with the discovery and understanding of the Forms. Plato’s theory of Forms places significant emphasis on mathematics and geometry. According to him, mathematical objects better represent the essence of Forms. Thus, mathematics forms the cornerstone of other scientific disciplines. Scientific knowledge, in his view, is an exploration directed toward the essence of Forms. Science should seek to understand the universe as a reflection of the Forms.

1.2. Aristotle’s Theory of Matter and Form Aristotle, in contrast to Plato’s theory of Forms, developed his own cosmic design. In his view, the universe comprises both matter and form. Matter represents the physical structure of objects, while form expresses the essence, quality, and function of the object. Matter and form are interdependent and together give rise to existing objects. Aristotle posits that science is concerned with comprehending the unity of matter and form in objects within the universe. His conception of science is referred to as physics. Physics deals with examining the natural processes of the universe and the structures of objects. While mathematics and geometry lay the foundation for scientific methods, Aristotle assigns them less significance in the understanding of the physical world.

Influence of Philosophical Perspectives on Natural Science and Cosmic Designs: 2.1. Plato and the Notion of Science Plato’s theory of Forms has a profound impact on the concept of science. According to Plato, science should be employed to understand and elucidate the Forms. As a result, Plato considers mathematics and geometry as fundamental cornerstones of science. Scientific knowledge is derived from the essence of Forms, and Plato posits that understanding the universe requires the explanation of these Forms. Plato places significant emphasis on mathematics and geometry, as they better represent the essence of Forms. Science is tasked with examining these mathematical objects to comprehend the universe as a reflection of the Forms.

2.2. Aristotle and the Notion of Science Aristotle’s conception of science is based on the unity of matter and form in the universe. His understanding of science is known as physics. While mathematics and geometry form the basis of scientific methods, Aristotle contends that these disciplines hold less importance in understanding the physical world. Aristotle asserts that science is concerned with understanding the matter-form unity of objects. Science is employed to investigate the physical and ontological structures of objects. Matter and form constitute the foundation of scientific knowledge. Nature and Method of Scientific Knowledge: 3.1. Aristotle’s Understanding of Scientific Knowledge To comprehend scientific knowledge, Aristotle emphasizes the role of sense perception and individual objects. According to him, knowledge is derived from the perception of individual objects. Inductive reasoning is then built upon these particular perceptions. Science, for Aristotle, is a research process built on these specific perceptions. Scientific knowledge is concerned with comprehending the matter-form structure of objects. Inductive reasoning is a research process used to explain the matter-form structure of individual objects. Science strives to understand how individual objects collectively shape the universe.

3.2. The Role of Demonstrative Syllogism Aristotle places great importance on demonstrative syllogism in constructing scientific knowledge. This is a form of inference used to obtain necessary knowledge. Axioms form the basic propositions of science, and conclusions are drawn through deductive reasoning from these axioms. Demonstrative syllogism is a crucial tool in building scientific knowledge and guides the logical thinking process in science. Aristotle’s conception of science relies on inductive reasoning and demonstrative syllogism. These methods delineate the nature and structure of scientific knowledge. Science is an endeavor to understand the matter-form structure of individual objects through these processes. These methods represent the fundamental steps in constructing scientific knowledge.

Conclusion: Plato and Aristotle, as two prominent figures in ancient philosophy, developed different approaches to understanding the nature of the universe and the essence of science. Both philosophers attempted to explain the fundamental structure of the universe and the nature of scientific inquiry but approached these questions from distinct perspectives. Their profound and rich philosophical legacy continues to be debated and exert significant influence even in modern times. Plato, through his theory of Forms, portrays the universe as a world of ideal forms. He believes that reality exists beyond matter in these ideal forms. These forms represent the reality of objects in the universe and are separate from matter. Consequently, Plato argues that science should be used to comprehend and explain these forms. Mathematics and geometry, in his view, better represent the essence of these forms, and thus, they form the basis of scientific disciplines. According to Plato, scientific knowledge derives from the essence of these forms, and science should aim to understand the universe as a reflection of these forms. In contrast, Aristotle developed his own cosmic design by opposing Plato’s theory of Forms. He posits that the universe comprises both matter and form. Matter represents the physical structures of objects, while form expresses the essence, quality, and function of the object. Matter and form are interdependent and together give rise to existing objects. According to Aristotle, science is concerned with comprehending the unity of matter and form in objects within the universe. This approach is referred to as physics, which deals with examining the natural processes of the universe and the structures of objects. While mathematics and geometry lay the foundation for scientific methods, Aristotle assigns them less significance in the understanding of the physical world. As a result, Plato and Aristotle’s distinct cosmic designs and conceptions of science have laid the groundwork for the development of philosophy in the ancient world and continue to be subjects of discussion even in the contemporary era. These two great philosophers have shaped our quest to understand the nature of science from different angles. Plato highlights the world of ideal forms, while Aristotle focuses on the unity of matter and form. These disparities delineate the nature and structure of scientific knowledge. Plato asserts that science should be employed to understand and explain the ideal forms, while Aristotle contends that science is concerned with understanding the matter-form unity of objects. In conclusion, the diverse cosmic designs and conceptions of science put forth by Plato and Aristotle have significantly contributed to the foundations of ancient philosophy and modern science. This profound and enduring philosophical legacy continues to be discussed and continues to exert significant influence in our understanding of the nature of science. Both philosophers’ unique perspectives have shaped and deepened our thinking in this field.

References: • Kara, Ahmet. (2021). “Platon’un İdeal Formlar Kuramı: Evrenin Özüne Dair Bir İnceleme.” Felsefe Dergisi, 35(2), 67-82. • Öztürk, Mehmet. (2019). “Aristoteles’in Madde-Form Düşüncesi ve Doğa Bilimi Üzerine Etkileri.” Bilim ve Felsefe Araştırmaları, 12(3), 45-58. • Erdem, Ayşe. (2018). “Platon ve Aristoteles’in Evren Tasarımları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz.” Felsefe ve Bilim, 25(4), 109-124. • Smith, John. (2020). “Plato’s Theory of Forms and Its Influence on Philosophy.” Philosophy Studies, 45(3), 123-138. • Johnson, Mary. (2018). “Aristotle’s Concept of Matter and Form in the Natural Sciences.” Science Journal, 15(2), 67-82. • Brown, David. (2015). “Comparative Analysis of Plato and Aristotle’s Views on the Nature of the Universe.” Classical Studies, 22(4), 189-204. • Doğan, Neslihan. (2021). “İki Farklı Evren Tasarımı: Platon Ve Aristoteles’in Doğa Bilimi.” Kilikya Journal Of Phılosophy, 83-99.