Plato’s View of Human Nature
It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at those schools!
C.S.Lewis, The Last Battle spoken by Digory Kirke in Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia.
It was said that he was born of a virgin, and that his father was a deity. He was worshipped by some as a god after his death, and he changed the course of Western civilization. No, it's not who you think. I am referring to Plato (429-347 b.c.), about whom all sorts of apocryphal stories grew up almost immediately after his death.
•
Recall that Plato’s teacher. Socrates, was executed for asking questions and seeking
truth/ wisdom.
•
In his search for truth and knowledge,
Socrates ended up exposing frauds and deceivers and moral relativists.
•
Therefore, Philosophy was a (sacred?)
vocation for Plato, in the service of truth, goodness, beauty and the ordered
State.
Philosophy had a political mission for Socrates/ Plato. The great orator, Gorgias (483–375 BCE)[1], says a man well trained in rhetoric gains "the power of ruling his fellow countrymen" because he can "speak and convince the masses."[2] In fact, Gorgias says, there is no subject on which he could not speak before a popular audience more persuasively than any professional. Is rhetoric really that powerful? This speaks to what Plato thought the mission of philosophy was. It was to distinguish appearance from reality.
·
Plato was
both a writer and a teacher.
·
Opened a
school on the outskirts of Athens dedicated to the Socratic search for wisdom.
·
Plato's
school, then known as the Academy, was the first university in western history
and operated from 387 B.C. until A.D. 529, when it was closed by the Roman
Emperor Justinian.
·
His popular
published writings are in the form of dialogues, with Socrates as the principal
speaker. This discussion format has become known as Socratic dialogue.
Realm of Being / Realm of Becoming
Plato attempts to reconcile two prominent
opposing metaphysics of his day:
- Parmenides-
reality (Being) must be eternal and unchanging (therefore not the same as
the world of our experience.)
- Heraclitus-
world of our experience is constantly changing.
Also, Plato borrows heavily from Pythagoras:
-we have a priori knowledge of objective,
non-physical abstract entities which are constant and unchanging. And these entities structure the world we see
around us.
Note: Plato is a metaphysical dualist. He
denies the monism of his predecessors.
That is, Plato believes that in order to explain reality one must appeal
to two radically different sorts of substances, in this case, material
(visible) and immaterial substance (invisible).
So reality can be seen as divided into
two “realms,” the Realm of Being and Realm of Becoming. Key to understanding Plato’s
Metaphysics is his distinction between these two “realms.”
"The Realm of Being"
Realm of Immaterial Objects
(Invisible) This is a level of reality
which is timeless and eternal and ultimately regulates the material objects
with which we interact on a daily basis.
Key concept: “Forms”
Known as "Ideas" gk=“εἶδος”
/ "Eidos"
But what sort of a thing is a
“form?”
First it should be noted that Forms
seem to be precisely the sorts of things that Socrates was looking for when he
engaged in dialogues in Athens (e.g. What is it that unites then many instances
for Justice as one?) To know the essence
of, say, justice, is to know what the nature of justice is, what defines “justice”
and distinguishes it from everything that is not justice. It would seem that to
know what justice is, is to know the very Form of Justice.
•
But what kind of thing exactly
is a “Form” for Plato?
•
What is it that one
knows?
•
And how does one come to
know it?
For instance, is it a kind of physical
object, observable through one or more of the five senses? Is it something subjective, an idea in our
minds, knowable via introspection? Is it something conventional, a mere way of
speaking and acting that we pick up from other members of our community, but
which might change from place to place and time to time?
To the last three questions, Plato
would answer with a very firm “No,” “No,” and “No.”
Let us begin by considering a somewhat
intuitive example of a Form: a triangle.
Actually, let us consider several triangles:
The Many and the One
Consider all these several triangles:
small ones, large ones, very large ones.
Some are some isosceles, some scalene, some obtuse, and so on. Do these many things have some one thing in
common? Are these “many” in any respect “one?”
Is there any sense in which we might
say these “many” are all “the same,” all
“one?” Well, yes; they are
all triangles. That is
to say, each is a closed plane figure with exactly three straight sides. This defines the essence, the nature, or the
FORM of triangles. (i.e. Triangularity).
And it is by virtue of possessing this common Form that they ARE
triangles. So “Triangle”
names a necessary set of properties, not merely an accidental list of
properties, that all triangles share. And
these necessary properties are jointly sufficient. This special combination of properties is
what all and only triangles have in common, by virtue of the possession
of which they ARE triangles.
Now let’s note a couple of
things:
Notice that no particular
depiction of a triangle is going to be perfect. They will
necessarily lack, or at least not perfectly exemplify, features that are part
of being a triangle. They are going to
have lines that are partially broken, or corners that are not perfectly closed,
or lines that are not perfectly straight or merely one point thick, no matter
how carefully one draws them. Nevertheless, we recognize them to be
triangles, albeit, imperfect triangles.
Notice further that all of particular depictions
of triangles are going to have some properties that have nothing to do will
being a triangle (like being black or blue, or being
equilateral or small). These features
are features of some triangles and not of others. They do not enter into
the essence of triangle. Nothing about
being a triangle requires having these (accidental) features.
So lets take stock of where we are so far.
- When
we understand triangle form we understand perfect
triangle form, this despite the fact that we have only ever seen imperfect
triangle representations.
- Triangle
representations only approximate triangularity to some limited extent;
they are triangles “more or less.”
- Further
all triangle representations (imperfectly) possess certain necessary
features (i.e. properties essential to being a triangle).
- As
well as a whole host of other properties that have nothing to do with
being a triangle (i.e. properties accidental to being a
triangle).
- Understanding
Triangle Form requires understanding this difference between essential and
accidental properties.
- Recognizing
individual triangles as triangles requires understanding this
difference.
A further note about this triangle
form: it does not change.
•
But all material things, including
material triangle representations, come
into existence and go out of existence and change in other ways as well.
•
Yet, the essence of triangularity stays
the same.
So “Form of Triangle ” does
not name a physical object. All physical
objects are particular, visible changing material
things. Forms, by contrast, have none of
these properties.
So Forms are NOT Physical Objects
Thus, Plato concludes two related, but
independent things from this:
1. When we grasp the essence or nature
of a triangle, what we grasp is not something material or physical. Forms then are NOT physical objects.
(Metaphysical claim about Forms)
2. When we grasp the essence or nature
of a triangle, what we grasp is NOT something we grasp
nor could we grasp through the senses. (Epistemological claim about our
knowledge of Forms)
Is Triangle Form a Subjective Construct or Cultural
Artifact?
No.
We know many things about triangles
-not only their essential features, but also we know things that follow from
that essential nature, such as the fact that their interior angles necessarily
add up to 180 degrees, that the Pythagorean theorem is true of right triangles,
and so forth. These things are true
quite apart from our knowledge of them; they were true long before the first
geometer drew his first triangle in the sand, and will remain true even if
every particular material triangle were erased tomorrow.
What we know about triangles are
objective facts, things we have discovered rather than invented. It is not up
to us to legislate or construct that the interior angles of a triangle should
add up to 180 or that the Pythagorean Theorem should be true. We
could not individually or collectively construct these facts away. Long before we discovered these facts, they
were true and will remain true long after we're all dead.
What we know when we know the essence
of triangularity is:
- something
universal rather than particular
- something
immaterial rather than material
- something
timeless rather than ephemeral
- something
we know through the intellect rather than the senses
Now if the essence of triangularity is
something that exists neither as an object in the material world nor merely as
an object in the mind of a human or the collective of humans, then it must have
a unique kind of existence all its own, that of an abstract object existing in
what Platonists sometimes refer to as “The Realm of Being."
But Plato does not restrict himself to
geometric forms. There are other Forms in the Realm of
Being. What is true of triangles, in this regard, is
also true of physical objects such as cats.
Were I to show you two cats:
|
|
|
and ask “Is there something that
these two objects have in common?” you would likely say, “Yes,
there is.”
But note that, on the face of it at
least, you are making an existential claim.
You are claiming that “There IS something.” Or rather
“There exists some ‘thing’ that they have in common.” And what is that thing? What do the two cats have in common?
Cat Form.
Alternatively, one might ask:
“What
is it that all on only cats have in common in virtue of the possession of which
they ARE
cats?”
Likewise, one might ask:
“What
is it that all on only good things have in common in virtue of the possession
of which they ARE good?”
The answer to these questions are:
“The Form of Cat” and “The Form of the Good”
respectively.
·
But, not from human thought. (Platonic Realism as opposed to Nominalism[3])
*Note: you must not imagine that the abstract ideas which we come
to understand through reason are some how
“created” by reason. The Pythagorean Theorem was true long
before anyone knew it. Just actions are just (embody the Form of Justice)
whether anyone understands them to be just or not.
·
Like perfect examples or blueprints,
definitions of particular realities.
·
That which "all and only things of
a kind have in common and are what they are in virtue of possessing
that.”
Residents of the Realm of Being
Include-
Forms of:
Geometry
Abstract
“Ideas*” (e.g. Truth, Justice, Goodness, Beauty)
Essences
or “Natural Kinds” (Dogs, Trees, etc.)
We can recognize cats as cats only
because we know (can recognize) the form of cat. Say I show you three cats:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then I show you a new object and asked
you, “What is it?”
You would be certainly correct to say
that you have never seen that before in your life. You indeed have never seen this
particular before.[4] But if you recognize it as something you have
encountered before; it is only because you mind understands “cat form.”
You would likely recognize it as
something you have encountered before.
“It’s a cat.” you would say. But you could only come to the correct
judgement if you were recognizing something with which you were already
familiar, because your mind understands “cat form.” But according to Plato, this thing that you
recognize is NOT identical to anything you have ever seen before with your
eyes. As with triangles, no actual cat
is perfectly a cat, embodying cat form perfectly. Individual cats are just cats… more or
less. And, as with triangles, any particular cat will have accidental properties that have
nothing to do with being a cat. Every
cat that you have ever seen has either had green eyes or blue eyes or yellow
eyes, etc.. Each has been fat or skinny or fluffy or
hairless. But Cat Form has none of these
qualities.
*Note: this is part of what Plato means by calling Forms invisible. These are “invisible” meaning you
have never seen any of them nor could you. Nor can you “image” them in your
mind. They are known to you only via
your intellect. This leads Plato to say,
“What we think we cannot see and what we see we cannot think.”[5]
Individual cats are cats (and not, say,
dogs) because they exhibit “cat form” (and not dog form). Were there no such thing as cat form, there
could not be any cats at all. That means
that:
- The
sheer existence of cats is sufficient to assure us that there must be Cat
Form.
- Cat
Form governs or orders the natural, visible world.
- Cat
Form is ontologically prior to (and therefore more real than) individual
cats. Particulars are ontologically
dependent on the form in a way similar to the way reflections of dependent
upon the object of which they are a reflections, or shadows are dependent
upon the objects that cast them,
- If,
somehow, we were to get rid of all cats (Perish the thought.) Cat Form
would be no more affected than the Pythagorean Theorem would be affected
by erasing right triangles.
Thus, forms are the “most real,”
most lasting, most permanent aspect of reality.
They regulate the world of appearances. Particular instantiations,
by contrast, can hardly be said to be “real” at all. Further, the only reason particulars are the
particulars that they are is in virtue of embodying the form they do. The
very existence of particular things is itself parasitic on (thus less real
then) the Forms. The relationship of Forms to their particular instantiations
is similar to that between me and my shadow, or me and a photograph of me. I’m more “real” than they
because they depend on me in a way that I do NOT depend on them.
Note: Any particular courageous act DEPENDS on there being such a
thing as “courage” or “FORM of courage.” Thus,
according to Plato, the forms are metaphysically prior to the particulars.
Thus, Ultimate Reality (The Forms) is
“reflected in/ shadowed by” the constantly changing (less perfect)
world of our experience. Plato refers to this latter level of reality as "The
Realm of Becoming" The Forms are
themselves arranged into a hierarchy, the arch form being the Form of the
Good.
“The Realm of Becoming”
·
The Realm of Material Objects
(The Visible)
·
The Level of reality which we
experience through our senses
Residents of the Realm of Becoming Include:
Particular things,
(e.g. actual dogs, trees, houses)
Triangle
Representations
Particular Good
Things
Particular True
Statements/ Utterances
Particular Just Acts
Particular Beautiful
Objects
All of these endure only for a time and
then pass away.
The Many can indeed be One
Socrates, Aristotle, and Harry Reid,
though distinct and separated by time and space, are all men because they all
participate in the same one Form of Man. Fido, Rover, and Spot are all dogs because
they all participate in the Form of Dog. Paying your phone bill, staying faithful to
your spouse, and defending an innocent child are all just actions because they
participate in the Form of Justice.
Thus forms are the “most
real,” most lasting, most permanent aspect of reality. They regulate the world of appearances.
Particular instantiations by contrast can hardly be
said to be “real” at all. Further
the only reasons particulars are the particulars they are is in virtue of
embodying the form they do. Thus the
very existence of particular things is itself
parasitic on (thus less real than) the Forms.
The relationship of Forms to their particular
instantiations is similar to that between me and my shadow, or me and a
photograph of me. There has to be a “me” for there to be a shadow cast
of me. Likewise with the photo. There needs to be a “me” for
there to be a photograph of me, but there does not need to be a photograph of
me for there to be a me. So, photographs
of me are ontologically dependent upon on me in a way that I do not
ontologically depend on them.
Plato realizes that most humans are
never really aware of this realm of Forms and it’s
relation to the visible world.
Regrettably, according to Plato, they are deceived and take appearance
for reality. They believe the things
that they see before them to be what is real when in fact it is merely an
imperfect reflection of what is REALLY real. To illustrate this point, Plato offers his
famous “Allegory of the Cave.”
The Allegory of the Cave
In order to understand Plato's theory, we have to entertain the notion
that not everything that is real exists in space and time. Indeed, the whole point of his Theory of Forms
is that, if true, it proves that there must be a transcendent immaterial
dimension to reality.
Roger Penrose and the (p)latonic Objectivity of Mathematical Realities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvS2K06dg4
The Allegory of the Cave
Is not the dreamer,
sleeping or waking, one who likens dissimilar things, who puts the copy in
place of the real object?[6]
- Plato
[Socrates:] … let me show in a figure how far our
nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a
underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all
along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs
and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being
prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a
fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is
a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way,
like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they
show the puppets.
[Glaucon:] I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all
sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and
various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others
silent.
[Glaucon:] You have shown me a strange image, and they are
strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows,
or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of
the cave?
[Glaucon:] True, how could they see anything but the
shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they
would only see the shadows?
[Glaucon:] Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they
not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
…
[Glaucon:] No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the
shadows of the images.
[Glaucon:] That is certain.
In The Allegory of the Cave, Plato
likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave,
unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind
them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet,
along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners,
hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are
unable to see these puppets, the real objects that pass behind them. What the
prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not
see.
Such prisoners would mistake appearance
for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows)
were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.
So when the prisoners talk, what are
they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind
them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a
book,” what is he talking about? He thinks he is talking about a book,
but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word
“book.” What does that refer to?
Plato’s answer was:
“And if they could
talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names
they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”
Socrates:] And now look
again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and
disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled
suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the
light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be
unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the
shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him,
that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching
nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a
clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his
instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name
them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he
formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
[Glaucon:] Far truer.
[Socrates:] And if he is
compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes
which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which
he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things
which are now being shown to him?
[Glaucon:] True, he said.
[Socrates:] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep
and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced
into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and
irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will
be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now
called realities.
Plato says that we are like those men
sitting in the cave: we think we understand the real world, but because we are
trapped in our bodies we can see only the shadows on the wall. One of his goals
is to help us understand the real world better, by finding ways to predict or
understand the real world even without being able to see it.
Now, Socrates asks us to imagine what
would happen if the freed enlightened prisoner were to return to the cave and
tell is former prisoners of his adventures and of the true nature of reality
and the distinction between reality and the mere appearances of reality.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring
the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his
sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which
would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable)
would he not be ridiculous?
Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without
his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one
tried to loose another and lead him up to the light,
let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.[7]
We can come to grasp the true Forms
with our minds.
[Socrates:] This entire
allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument;
the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and
you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the
ascent of the soul into the intellectual world ….
But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of
knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an
effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all
things beautiful and right… and the immediate source of reason and truth
in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally,
either in public or private life must have his eye fixed. ….
Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of
learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to
turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of
knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world
of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of
being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.
The Allegory presents, in brief form,
most of Plato's major philosophical assumptions: his belief that the world
revealed by our senses is not the real world but only a poor copy of it, and
that the real world can only be apprehended intellectually; his idea that
knowledge cannot be transferred from teacher to student, but rather that
education consists in directing student's minds toward what is real and
important and allowing them to apprehend it for themselves; his faith that the
universe ultimately is good; his conviction that enlightened individuals have
an obligation to the rest of society, and that a good society must be one in
which the truly wise (the Philosopher-King) are the rulers.
For Plato the only and proper response
to the Forms (once rightly appreciated) is love. (Philo Sophia) This he expresses well in the Symposium
when speaking about the Form of Beauty (which is the only REAL beauty). Indeed the Forms are the ONLY things to be
truly loved.
You see, the man who has been thus far guided in matters of Love,
who has beheld beautiful things in the right order and correctly, is coming now
to the goal of Loving: All of a sudden he will catch sight of something
wonderfully beautiful in its nature; that, Socrates, is the reason for all his
earlier labors: First, [Beauty] always is, and neither comes to be nor passes
away, neither waxes nor wanes. Second, it is not beautiful this way and ugly
that way, nor beautiful at one time and ugly at another; nor beautiful in
relation to one thing and ugly in relation to another; nor is it beautiful here
but ugly there, as it would be if it were beautiful for some people and ugly
for others. Nor will the beautiful appear to him in the guise of a face or
hands or anything else that belongs to the body. It will not appear to him as
one idea or one kind of knowledge. It is not anywhere in another thing, as in
an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself
with itself. It is always one in form;
and all the other beautiful things share in that, in such a way that when those
others come to be or pass away, this does not become the least bit smaller or greater
nor suffer any change.[8][9]
Full text at:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html
Or
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
Epistemological Ramifications of this
Metaphysical View:
Since Forms are not perceived (empirically),
they cannot be learned through experience; we never experience to forms
(sensuously). We have never seen, nor could we ever see a triangle.
Yet we do know them and lucky for us we do since the laws of geometry govern
the world. (Just try to build a deck on the back of your house without
it.) Cat Form determines how cats
behave. The knowledge of Cat Form is
what allows us to recognize cats when we see them, predict their behavior, etc.
So, if we don’t learn the forms
through experience how DID we acquire
knowledge of the Forms? Plato reasons
that we must have acquired the knowledge of the Forms somehow sometime before
being born (since it was no time after). Otherwise we would never recognize the
truth when we see it.
In the Platonic dialogue The Meno Socrates
“teaches” a slave boy geometry by merely asking him questions. This is supposed to illustrate that the boy
knew the answers already; he merely needed to be asked the right questions in
order to remember. This is the thinking
behind the “Socratic Method” teaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEF035uNC2M
Plato’s Doctrine of Reminiscence:
All knowledge of the forms must be
gained in some sort of existence before our life on earth begins. Humans attain knowledge of the true forms or
essences of the material world.
This knowledge can be accessed after
birth with the mental processes of recollection or reminiscence that is
stimulated by being reminded.
Plato posited that our minds/ psyches
must predate our bodies because this is the only way a human could gain
knowledge of certain concepts like perfect equality, etc. which cannot be
gained from sensory experience. This is one
of his arguments to establish the existence of an immaterial human soul.
The Paradox of Knowledge
Paradox of Knowledge: Either pursuing truth is futile or unnecessary.
Either we don’t know what the truth is, and therefore can never recognize
it, even when we see it, or we already know it and therefore there is no need
to look.
Plato’s Solution: We know it but forgot. The world around us and good
teachers serve to jog our memory.
Is Plato’s solution too “spooky?”
“To some, the conception
of a previous life with its opportunity for a glimpse of the eternal essences
may appear fantastic. Yet to any one who believes
that the soul survives the body the view that the soul antecedes the body
should not seem unreasonable. In any case, the transcendental theory is only an
interpretation of the immediate fact that experience fails to account for all
of knowledge. The doctrine of the limitation of empiricism remains, whatever
one's view about the origin of abstract ideas may be. We cannot derive our
categories -- thinghood, quality, relation, causality, -- from experience,
because we use them in understanding experience; we cannot derive our laws of
thought -- such as the law of contradiction -- from experience, because they
are presupposed in any actual process of thinking; we cannot derive universal
principles from experience, because experience is limited to particular cases;
finally, we cannot derive any concepts (such as white-square) from experience,
because they constitute standards by which the data of experience are measured.
The kernel of the Platonic theory is rationalism, namely that there is a
non-empirical element in knowledge.” [10]
Therefore:
Plato believes that our Consciousness
(Soul/ Mind/ Psyche) predates our bodies and will, in all
likelihood, postdate our bodies as well. We (our souls) are immortal-
like the forms themselves. The
individual is identified with his or her MIND, and NOT his or her body. All real knowledge is a matter of remembering
the forms. Truth must be in us, innately. Thus Plato defends the claim that we have
“innate ideas.” Indeed, his
is perhaps the most robust notion of innate ideas.
Innate Ideas: knowledge and ideas already gained by the time of our
birth.
Experience is useful only in so far as
it jogs our memory of the forms. But it does not/ cannot give us any real
knowledge of Ultimate Reality. (This makes him a Rationalist)
Note: A Rationalist
is one who believes that the senses are a poor or unreliable source of
knowledge and the true knowledge comes from introspection and there exists
innate ideas. (This is contrasted with Empiricists
who take exactly the opposite positions to those of the Rationalist.)
Note:
Even further, he is a mystic- Real/ Ultimate knowledge is imparted to
humans by means of a supernatural extraordinary experience. (Thus he has an affinity
with certain religious traditions.)
Knowledge and “True Opinion”
In the Theaetetus Plato suggests the inquiry should be directed at trying
"… to find a single formula that applies to the many kinds of
knowledge" (148d). Plato presumes
that there is a single thing, a common form of knowledge, which should be
capable of being defined.
Plato rejected the notion that
knowledge is simply “true belief.” A jury may correctly believe
that the accused is guilty, but if their belief is based on hearsay, we would
say that they have true belief, but not knowledge. "But if true belief and knowledge were
the same thing, the best of jurymen could never have a correct belief without
knowledge. It now appears that they must be two different things"
(Theaetetus 201c). In the Meno, Plato explores further the relation between
knowledge and true belief (which is there called "opinion").
However, Plato probably would not have
claimed the jury could ever have knowledge in the truest sense. In The
Republic, Plato claims that sensible objects and events (like the
commission of a crime) are stuck at the level of true opinion for metaphysical
reasons. For Plato, the only kind of knowledge fully worthy of the title “Knowledge”
would be knowledge which is certain, timeless and necessary. True reality lies if the realm of forms alone
and thus true knowledge resides in knowledge of the forms alone. Since the realm of becoming is a shadow-image
of the true reality, genuine knowledge
in the truest sense of the world of appearances is metaphysically impossible. All that we can ever aspire to would be approximate
knowledge.
"When
[the soul] inclines to that region which is mingled with darkness, the world of
becoming and passing away, it opines only (i.e.
true opinion) and its edge is blunted, and it shifts its opinions
hither and thither, and again seems as if it lacked reason."[11]
The “Divided Line”
In the Republic, Book VI, 507C,[12]
Plato describes two classes of things, those that can be seen but not thought, and those that can be thought but not seen. In the
visible world, shadows, reflections, as well as this things of which they are
shadows and reflections (plants, animals, etc.) are illuminated by the sun and
“known” to us by sight. But
of the invisible world, mathematical equations and proofs, as well as the forms
themselves, are illuminated by the Form of the Good and known to us (in the
fullest sense of knowledge) by intellect. As there are two metaphysically
distinct types on objects, owing to the metaphysical nature of these objects,
there are two types on “knowing” each directed to its object. There modes of “knowing” are
unequal, the former rising as most to “true opinion” the latter
only fully deserving of the title “knowledge.”
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
|
509D-510A |
Likenesses, images, shadows,
imitations, our vision (ὄψις, ὁμοιωθὲν) |
The physical things that we
see/perceive with our senses (ὁρώμενα,
ὁμοιωθὲν) |
Opinion, beliefs (δόξα,
νοῦν) |
Knowledge (γνῶσις,
νοούμενα) |
|
511D-E |
Conjectures, images, (εἰκασία) |
Trust, confidence, belief (πίστις) |
Understanding, hypothesis (διανόια) |
Intellection, the objects of reason (νόησις, ἰδέαι,
ἐπιστήμην) |
“This,
then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the good which the
good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the good is in the
intelligible region to reason [CD] and the objects of reason [DB], so is this
(sc. the sun) in the visible world to vision [AB] and the objects of vision
[BC].” [13]
|
Type of cognition |
Type of object |
|
Philosophical understanding |
Ideas
(Forms),
especially the Idea
(Form) of the Good |
|
Mathematical reasoning, including theoretical
science |
Abstract
mathematical objects, such as numbers and lines |
|
Beliefs about physical things, including empirical
science |
Physical
objects |
|
Opinions, illusions |
"Shadows"
and "reflections" of physical objects |
So again, we cannot see what we can think,
and we cannot think what we see. The
fundamental problem with the world of the senses is just that it is grasped by
the senses, not by reason. Plato (in places) seems to allow that “true
opinion” could become knowledge if it was “tied down” with
"an account of the reason why."
This later is widely accepted among philosophers as “The
Traditional Account of Knowledge.”
The Traditional Account of Knowledge
Knowledge is True, Justified Belief.
•
Knowledge =
–
True
–
Justified
–
Belief
•
Kn = TJB
From the time of Plato on this view of
knowledge as true justified belief became the standard accepted by western
philosophers largely up until the 20th century. As a result western
epistemology has largely been concerned with the question of what constitutes
justification and what is the nature of truth. Interestingly however in the
20th century the traditional account of knowledge has come to be questioned and
rejected by many philosophers. For more
information on this contemporary development and epistemology see Edmund Gettier’s
1963 article in Analysis, "Is
Justified True Belief Knowledge?"
But ultimate knowledge (for Plato that
which is truly worthy of the name knowledge) will always be lodged in the world
of the intellect/ reason. There is
always room for error in the application of the reason to an empirical issue at
hand. Only when the reason/ forms/ logos itself is the object do we have
knowledge, do we have something that is worthy of the title knowledge. Knowledge of (this) reality is never changing: gained only through thinking. 2+2 =4 : facts
are eternal and necessary.
Knowledge and Education
Education is best served by asking the
student questions and allowing the student "see" the truth on one's
own (Socratic Method). Real
knowledge is conceptual and verbalize-able.
That which does not yield words or cannot be expressed in words does not
merit the title “knowledge” or wisdom or intelligence.[14]
Philosophical/ Dialectical Project:
The successful conclusion of a
philosophical argument will yield the correct definition of the concept under
discussion, the intellectual articulation and apprehension of the FORM. (E.g.
What it is that all and only courageous acts have in common by virtue of which
they ARE courageous acts.)
Ethical Ramifications of this
Metaphysical View:
The attainment of knowledge of eternal
forms is the only worthwhile activity for humans.
What is most real and lasting and
important about reality (of value, worthy of attention and service) is the
immaterial realm. The most noble part of
ourselves (our intellect-soul) is satisfied by nothing less than the
transcendent forms. Further, what is
most real and lasting and important about an individual (of value, worthy of
attention and service) is the immaterial aspect- the psyche or immortal
soul. It is the only thing about you that could possibly survive the
death of the physical body.
This sentiment would resonate well with
later Christians who taught:
"So
we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen
is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:18
"Do
not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in
and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Matthew
6:19-21/NIV
“Do
not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,
which the Son of Man will give you.” John 6:27
One of Plato’s ethical slogans: “It
is better to suffer an injustice (which does not jeopardize the welfare of one’s
immortal soul) than to do an injustice (which does jeopardize the welfare of
one’s immortal soul).”[15] To pursue wealth, physical pleasure, worldly
glory for their ephemeral charms is to be metaphysically misguided. The wise
man (philosopher) realizes that these are not to be sought to the detriment of
one’s soul.
(Some) Psychological Ramifications of
this Metaphysical View:
Plato
starting point for his divisions of the psych/soul is the different classes he
observed in society. He concluded that
these natural separations must arise from the psychology of the individuals who
make up society. Plato notes what
motivates people. The objects of our desires
distinguish important differences among these desires.
1) Some desires are directed at
things.
2) Others are directed at reputation
and honor
3) Others are directed at truth.
These
correspond to three distinct part of the soul:
(1) the appetitive (2) the spirited/competitive and (3) the rational.
Plato
explains this tripartite division by an allegory - a charioteer driving two
horses. The charioteer represents the rational part of the soul (3). The black
horse represents the appetitive part of the soul (1) and the white horse
represents the spirited/competitive part of the soul (2).
Plato’s Tripartite Soul
|
Parts of the Soul |
Appetitive (1) |
Spirited (2) |
Rational (3) |
|
Chariot Part |
Black horse on the Left |
White horse on the Right |
Charioteer |
|
Loves |
Emotion, Pleasure, Money, Comfort,
Physical Satisfaction |
Honor and Victory |
Truth, Wisdom and Analyzing |
|
Desires |
Basic Instincts – Hunger,
Thirst, Warmth, Sex…etc. |
Self-Preservation |
Truth |
|
The Virtue |
Temperance |
Courage |
Wisdom |
|
The Vice |
Gluttony, Lust and Greed |
Anger and Envy |
Pride and Sloth |
|
Body Symbol |
Belly/Genitals |
Heart |
Head |
|
Class in od People in Republic |
Merchants/Workers (Make things/
produce/ Self-interested) |
Auxiliaries/Soldiers (Police and
Defend) |
Guardians/ The Philosopher King (Govern) |
|
Star Trek Character (TOS) |
Bones |
Captain Kirk |
Spock |
Mental Health
then was achieved and maintained when reason was in control of the other two
motivators. The city-state was well when
reason was in control of the other two as well.
The city was simply a macrocosm of the individual.
(Some) Psychological Ramifications of
this Metaphysical View:
•
In
Plato’s Republic, people who are dominated by reason will become
philosophers and eventually rulers.
•
People
dominated by spirit will become warriors.
•
People
dominated by appetite will become merchants or manufacturers or workers or
farmers.
•
Reason should
control the soul of the human individual.
•
Rational
people should control the republic.
•
In The
Republic, bright women are given a first-class education and are allowed to
ascend to the level of philosopher-kings.
(Some)
Aesthetic Ramifications of this Metaphysical View: (Beauty)
When we recognize that something is beautiful,
we do so because we recognize that it participates in the eternal form of
beauty. Beauty names a transcendent object which does not exist in the world of
sense objects, but of which beautiful objects are mere imperfect copies.[16]
Further, since whether an object participates in the form of beauty or not is
an objective relation with no logically necessary consequences for perception,
it follows that judgements about whether an object is beautiful or not are not
mere subjective reports, but rather claims about objective states or
affairs. They cannot be based solely on sensual appeal and are subject to
revision and correction.
Judgements of
beauty cannot be based solely on sensual appeal and are subject to revision and
correction. Nevertheless,
“recognizing” beauty, like recognizing truth seems to be a
phenomenological revelation or epiphany, an Intuition- a non-evidentially
grounded certainty of an objective truth.
Consider:
All A is B
All B is C
Therefore?
Well…
All A is C
… but
how do you know? (Logical Intuition)
There is felt
similarity between that and the judgement that "X is beautiful."
or "X is more beautiful than
Y."
…but
how do you know?
(Some)
Aesthetic Ramifications of this Metaphysical View: (Art)
If art is merely an imitation of nature
(as Plato thought it was -Mimetic Theory of Art), then art is an imitation of
an imitation. This makes it VERY LOW on the metaphysical ladder. Since art
primarily appeals to our senses and not our reason this makes it VERY LOW on
the epistemological ladder.[17]
Since art directs our attention to the physical qualities of things, and the
physical in general, it is ethically dangerous. Since art appeals to our
irrational emotions, prompting us, sometimes, to weep at playacting and the
like, it is psychologically dangerous.
The wise person regulates the art that
he or she allows into his or her life according to the directives of reason. The wise polis (city-state, community)
regulates the art that it allows into the lives of its citizenry (censorship of
art).
An Ancient Quarrel
“there
is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry; of which there are many
proofs, such as the saying of 'the yelping hound howling at her lord,' or of
one 'mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and 'the mob of sages circumventing
Zeus,' and the 'subtle thinkers who are beggars after all'
…
Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of
imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered
State we shall be delighted to receive her --we are very conscious of her
charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth.
If her
defense fails, then, my dear friend, like other persons who are enamoured of something, but put a restraint upon themselves
when they think their desires are opposed to their interests, so too must we
after the manner of lovers give her up, though not without a struggle.[18]
Epilog (This is repetitive. - Skip if
you already pretty much understand the foregoing.)
In speaking with one of your classmates
earlier today I was trying to make the point that Plato's view of how we come
to know forms is very different from what we might call the “common sense”
view many hold today. Whereas today we might commonly say
we see a cat then we see another, cat then we see another cat, and so on, and
then we create the concept of “cat” from our experiences.[19]
Plato, by contrast, thinks that model is entirely backwards.
In fact, to see a cat as a
cat (as appose to an absolute individual particular, unrelated to any
other particular of you have previously experienced) requires that we begin
with the concept of cat form. Thus, we
cannot derive the cat form/ concept of cat form from our
experience. Our experience presupposes
it. Note that, if we perceive each
individual as an individual then they have no common form. Indeed, they have no determination whatsoever.
As individuals they are
undifferentiated.
What differentiates one
individual and thus what serves to make it intelligible and
“thinkable” are those forms (definitive natures) it exhibits. These serve to distinguish it from some and
liken it to others. We cannot know the
individual particular as a particular, but only as the instantiation of some
concept/ form or forms.
So note, if I showed you a cat and then
another cat and then another cat and then showed you a fourth cat that you've
never seen before and asked what you had what this new particular was, you would be quite correct to respond,
“I have no idea; I have never seen that before.” As an individual you have never seen this
individual particular before. What you have known before is cat form, so to see
is as a cat you would need to understand it as an instantiation of cat
form. But how did you know what to see
as relevant similarities with previously seen cats (essential properties) and
what to discard as irrelevant differences (accidental properties)? You could not know which similarities to see as
relevant and which differences to disregard as irrelevant if you did not
already possess the notion of cat form.
Thus you could never come to see these particulars as you could not come to see these as “the
same.”
All this to say that, without knowing
what cat form is, you could never see cats as cats. All you would see is a series of unrelated individual
particulars. Further these particulars would have no intelligible
determinations. They would be undifferentiated being or undifferentiated particular existence. Certainly this is not knowledge, and
this would not allow us to navigate the world. The mystery to be solved is “Where
did our knowledge of cat form come from?”
Of course, Plato tells his spooky story
about innate ideas. This is a story that
Aristotle rejects in favor of something he takes to be more common sensible. But as we shall see, he has in my view as hard,
if not a harder time explaining how this knowledge of forms arises in our
understanding.