Aristotle is considered by many to be one of the most influential philosophers in history. As a student of Plato, he relied on his mentor's metaphysical teachings on topics such as the theory of forms and his view of the soul. However, he also challenged them by introducing his own metaphysical ideas such as act and potency, hylomorphism and the four causes. He used these ideas to explain his view of the soul and the immateriality of the intellect. Before Aristotle, philosophers like Parmenides and Heraclitus debated the existence of change. Aristotle used the terms act and potency to respond to Parmenides' arguments about the non-existence of change and bridge the gap between the polar views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Aristotle used act and potency to examine many things such as motion, causality, and metaphysics. He explained that the act or actuality of a thing is its true manner of being and that potency or potential is a thing's capacity to be, beyond its current existence. For example, a soccer ball is actually on the field; but in power it can be kicked and enter the goal. According to Aristotle's reasoning, the becoming or change of the soccer ball occurs when a potential is actualized. Even though these changes occur, the thing itself remains the same. When the ball is kicked, he loses the reality of being on the field and gains the reality of being in the goal; in turn, the ball then loses the potentiality of being in the goal and acquires the potentiality of being on the field. Aristotle later explains that the "full reality" of a thing occurs when the actuality and virtuality of a thing are combined. He notes that while things may be "pure power", i.e. not real or real, there is... middle of paper ... a usable argument. I can see the understanding in both schools of thought. If I had to think logically, I would say Aristotle, because he bases his conclusions on science and evidence. However, it is their view of the soul that allows me to decide who I (if I had to choose) agree with. Personally, I believe that the soul, my soul, is something that exists separately from my body. I believe that my body is a temporary and imperfect thing, but that my soul is immortal. I can't say I came to this conclusion because it is the most "plausible" answer, but rather a belief in my faith that this life is temporary and all souls are eternal. Although I understand that this view is not entirely consistent with Plato's, I think it is closer to mine than Aristotle's. “Of the Anima.” Fundamental works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941.