Plato (4th century B.C):
Understanding of reality:
Considered to be first great rationalist philosopher
Believed truths of the universe are knowable by mind alone ie reason not
observation (a priori)
Also in more usual sense: best part of humanity was the power to reason
(sets us apart from animals). Only reason people do bad things is when they
fail to use reason.
When we do this we are 'remembering’ information from our soul’s
experience in the Realm of the Forms. Education draws out, it
doesn’t put in. (Story of Meno’s servant- Socrates)
Plato was dissatisfied with the impermanence of our shifting world and determined
that there must be certain knowledge in another world, if not ours: hence The
Forms:
Ideal, eternal versions of things that exist on earth (particulars)
When we picture some things, we have an ideal of it in mind
without ever having seen this ideal e.g perfect cake, or justice.
Reason we can group seemingly different things into the same
category: they have the same ultimate Form e.g Chihuahua and
Great Dane
Forms exists in the Realm of the Forms, with our souls:
In the Realm of Appearances we forget what our souls learned in the Realm of the
Forms (which is true, good, and permanent) therefore is inferior
Things in our world don’t really exist, we just believe they do, not ‘true
knowledge’ as our senses are limited.
Form of the Good is the highest form: source of this intelligible order, all other forms
have perfection from participating in the Good, it is the higher source of perception.
Allows us to understand the other forms, just as on earth the sun allows us to see
the world as it is. (As seen in Plato’s ‘Divided Line’)
The two realms are in ratio to each-other: if something is true in the world
of Appearances, it is even more fully true in the realm of the Forms.
Below Form of the Good: higher forms e.g justice and beauty, then
lower forms e.g dogness, cakeness, below are the particulars e.g
actual dogs and cakes.
It would be impossible for a philosopher with an understanding of the form
of the good to do wrong, so societies should be ruled by such a 'philosopher
king’.
The demiurge moulded matter that was in this realm based on the perfect forms in
the realm of the forms. This is why we can recognise beauty, for example, as all
beautiful things have been made with the perfect form of beauty in mind. The
demiurge is NOT the same as the God of classical theism as he is not omnipotent
and is not immutable.
Analogy of the cave:
Underground cave where prisoners have spent their whole lives chained to a wall,
shadows are cast to the opposite wall of people walking behind by a fire near the
entrance.
Only see this ‘shadow’ world, never see the actual town of people walking
behind
They have the lowest awareness of reality
, One prisoner is released and is able to see physical objects and the fire, understands
that his previous belief was an illusion.
Leaves the cave and sees the real world: dazzling at first seeing shadows of
the real world, then the real objects (‘The Forms’) and the Sun (Form of the
Good).
If prisoner went back to the cave it would seem much worse, and other
prisoners could not conceptualise this other reality- would probably think he
was crazy
In this way, we are all ‘prisoners’ of our way of viewing reality, and only see
‘shadows’ of an object’s true form: the philosopher is an escaped prisoner.
Reflects our ability to categorise objects which share few, if any physical properties +
Descartes: recognise some things apart from their physical properties e.g would still
recognise a candle if it had melted (changed properties)
Ideal Standard Argument: can visualise an ideal standard of concepts even though
they may not exist in the physical world e.g perfect justice. This ideal needs an
explanation, and there isn’t one in the physical world.
Heraclitus: ‘cannot step in the same river twice’, physical world constantly changing
so knowledge of it is impossible. We do have some certain knowledge of
mathematics however, so some things must exist immutably. Ie supports Plato’s
claim that true knowledge is of eternal truths, which exist in the Realm of Forms, not
the physical world.
Innate feeling: unsatisfying to go through life without knowing most things for sure,
can feel comforted to know that our world is a mere imitation, ideas will not
disappear. (Although cannot prove its falsity)
Form of the Good: good founding for morality, knowing what an ideal world ought
to look like we can make changes towards it.
Why perfection: the strength of our desire for truth and ‘perfection’ is not evidence
that it exists. Just because this doesn’t exist in our physical world, doesn’t mean it
must exist elsewhere. (Karl Popper)
Hume: the fact that we have an idea of what perfection would be does not mean it
exists. Even if we have never experienced ‘perfection’ we just use our concept of
‘imperfect’ and conceive of its negation- this gives us the idea of perfect (not that
our souls remember perfection)
Aristotle: just knowing what good is doesn’t make someone morally perfect (see
'philosopher king’), a person must practice virtue.
Neitzsche: said Form of the Good was a ‘dangerous error’- philosophers
often invent ideas that suit emotional purposes e.g Plato’s desire for
societies to be ruled by philosophers (of which he was one), and pretend
they have come upon them by reason.
Absurdities: how many things have forms- one for every single person or just
humans generally? What about single-cellular organisms? World cannot be divided
into neat categories, where do we draw the line?
Just because we have a word or a concept for something doesn’t mean it actually
exists. Nouns can refer to non-existent entities (onomatoids- Kotarbinski), just
because we have concepts of them doesn’t mean they actually exist e.g ‘there is
nothing in my cupboard’, nothing doesn’t exist, would be a contradiction . Could
, refer to imaginary objects too e.g a flying pig. So, words ike ‘justice’, ‘perfection’ or
‘goodness’ might just be onomatoids- they do not exist in reality.
Wittgenstein: can recognise enough similarities to place two things into the same
category, even if they do look quite different- this, rather than our souls having
witnessed their perfect form, can explain our common understanding of
concepts/recognition of objects.
Ockham’s Razor: Plato has ‘multiplied entities beyond necessity’
No empirical evidence
Although Plato would say this is not a valid criticism because empirical
evidence cannot give us true ‘knowledge’ only ‘opinions’, because the
mutability of the world means that no perfect/unchanging truth can be
found there + our senses deceive us, echoed by Descartes ‘I think therefore I
am’
Does everything have an ideal, perfect form of it? Is there a perfect form of evil,
slavery, cancer? This seems contrary to Plato’s suggestion that all forms are known
by the form of the good.
Plato might argue however that cancer is the absence of health, slavery is
the absence of justice
The concepts in the forms are subjective eg we do not all have the same view on the
perfection of justice
No explanation for how the demiurge exists, how the two realms interact, where the
realm of forms is etc.
All based on reason, yet Plato offers limited rationale for his suggested
existence of a demiurge
Soul, Mind and Body
Philosophical language in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle:
Plato:
Viewed the soul as the essential and immaterial part of a human,
temporarily united with the body.
There is no material permanence in the word (ie Heraclitus) e.g plants grow
and die, great works of art are destroyed, therefore must exist in the
spiritual Realm of the Forms.
We all have immortal, simple (indestructible) souls that cast off their
physical bodies after death and choose a new life to inhabit- seen in
Plato’s ‘Myth of Er’.
Death is nothing to fear, just shaking of a physical shell to return to
the ‘pure essence’ of reality.
View of the body as mutable and constantly changing aligns with
science, as it has been found that every 7 years cells are replaced.
Therefore, our identity/thoughts/memories must seemingly stem
from elsewhere: our soul. This aligns with Locke’s argument that our
past memories are what links and keeps our identity as one.
Our souls have prior knowledge from the Realm of the Forms and ideas
about ideals.
Peter Geach: it does not make sense for the soul to see the Forms-
sight is a sense experience linked to the body. Plato humanises the
soul by suggesting that it has bodily functions like sight.
Understanding of reality:
Considered to be first great rationalist philosopher
Believed truths of the universe are knowable by mind alone ie reason not
observation (a priori)
Also in more usual sense: best part of humanity was the power to reason
(sets us apart from animals). Only reason people do bad things is when they
fail to use reason.
When we do this we are 'remembering’ information from our soul’s
experience in the Realm of the Forms. Education draws out, it
doesn’t put in. (Story of Meno’s servant- Socrates)
Plato was dissatisfied with the impermanence of our shifting world and determined
that there must be certain knowledge in another world, if not ours: hence The
Forms:
Ideal, eternal versions of things that exist on earth (particulars)
When we picture some things, we have an ideal of it in mind
without ever having seen this ideal e.g perfect cake, or justice.
Reason we can group seemingly different things into the same
category: they have the same ultimate Form e.g Chihuahua and
Great Dane
Forms exists in the Realm of the Forms, with our souls:
In the Realm of Appearances we forget what our souls learned in the Realm of the
Forms (which is true, good, and permanent) therefore is inferior
Things in our world don’t really exist, we just believe they do, not ‘true
knowledge’ as our senses are limited.
Form of the Good is the highest form: source of this intelligible order, all other forms
have perfection from participating in the Good, it is the higher source of perception.
Allows us to understand the other forms, just as on earth the sun allows us to see
the world as it is. (As seen in Plato’s ‘Divided Line’)
The two realms are in ratio to each-other: if something is true in the world
of Appearances, it is even more fully true in the realm of the Forms.
Below Form of the Good: higher forms e.g justice and beauty, then
lower forms e.g dogness, cakeness, below are the particulars e.g
actual dogs and cakes.
It would be impossible for a philosopher with an understanding of the form
of the good to do wrong, so societies should be ruled by such a 'philosopher
king’.
The demiurge moulded matter that was in this realm based on the perfect forms in
the realm of the forms. This is why we can recognise beauty, for example, as all
beautiful things have been made with the perfect form of beauty in mind. The
demiurge is NOT the same as the God of classical theism as he is not omnipotent
and is not immutable.
Analogy of the cave:
Underground cave where prisoners have spent their whole lives chained to a wall,
shadows are cast to the opposite wall of people walking behind by a fire near the
entrance.
Only see this ‘shadow’ world, never see the actual town of people walking
behind
They have the lowest awareness of reality
, One prisoner is released and is able to see physical objects and the fire, understands
that his previous belief was an illusion.
Leaves the cave and sees the real world: dazzling at first seeing shadows of
the real world, then the real objects (‘The Forms’) and the Sun (Form of the
Good).
If prisoner went back to the cave it would seem much worse, and other
prisoners could not conceptualise this other reality- would probably think he
was crazy
In this way, we are all ‘prisoners’ of our way of viewing reality, and only see
‘shadows’ of an object’s true form: the philosopher is an escaped prisoner.
Reflects our ability to categorise objects which share few, if any physical properties +
Descartes: recognise some things apart from their physical properties e.g would still
recognise a candle if it had melted (changed properties)
Ideal Standard Argument: can visualise an ideal standard of concepts even though
they may not exist in the physical world e.g perfect justice. This ideal needs an
explanation, and there isn’t one in the physical world.
Heraclitus: ‘cannot step in the same river twice’, physical world constantly changing
so knowledge of it is impossible. We do have some certain knowledge of
mathematics however, so some things must exist immutably. Ie supports Plato’s
claim that true knowledge is of eternal truths, which exist in the Realm of Forms, not
the physical world.
Innate feeling: unsatisfying to go through life without knowing most things for sure,
can feel comforted to know that our world is a mere imitation, ideas will not
disappear. (Although cannot prove its falsity)
Form of the Good: good founding for morality, knowing what an ideal world ought
to look like we can make changes towards it.
Why perfection: the strength of our desire for truth and ‘perfection’ is not evidence
that it exists. Just because this doesn’t exist in our physical world, doesn’t mean it
must exist elsewhere. (Karl Popper)
Hume: the fact that we have an idea of what perfection would be does not mean it
exists. Even if we have never experienced ‘perfection’ we just use our concept of
‘imperfect’ and conceive of its negation- this gives us the idea of perfect (not that
our souls remember perfection)
Aristotle: just knowing what good is doesn’t make someone morally perfect (see
'philosopher king’), a person must practice virtue.
Neitzsche: said Form of the Good was a ‘dangerous error’- philosophers
often invent ideas that suit emotional purposes e.g Plato’s desire for
societies to be ruled by philosophers (of which he was one), and pretend
they have come upon them by reason.
Absurdities: how many things have forms- one for every single person or just
humans generally? What about single-cellular organisms? World cannot be divided
into neat categories, where do we draw the line?
Just because we have a word or a concept for something doesn’t mean it actually
exists. Nouns can refer to non-existent entities (onomatoids- Kotarbinski), just
because we have concepts of them doesn’t mean they actually exist e.g ‘there is
nothing in my cupboard’, nothing doesn’t exist, would be a contradiction . Could
, refer to imaginary objects too e.g a flying pig. So, words ike ‘justice’, ‘perfection’ or
‘goodness’ might just be onomatoids- they do not exist in reality.
Wittgenstein: can recognise enough similarities to place two things into the same
category, even if they do look quite different- this, rather than our souls having
witnessed their perfect form, can explain our common understanding of
concepts/recognition of objects.
Ockham’s Razor: Plato has ‘multiplied entities beyond necessity’
No empirical evidence
Although Plato would say this is not a valid criticism because empirical
evidence cannot give us true ‘knowledge’ only ‘opinions’, because the
mutability of the world means that no perfect/unchanging truth can be
found there + our senses deceive us, echoed by Descartes ‘I think therefore I
am’
Does everything have an ideal, perfect form of it? Is there a perfect form of evil,
slavery, cancer? This seems contrary to Plato’s suggestion that all forms are known
by the form of the good.
Plato might argue however that cancer is the absence of health, slavery is
the absence of justice
The concepts in the forms are subjective eg we do not all have the same view on the
perfection of justice
No explanation for how the demiurge exists, how the two realms interact, where the
realm of forms is etc.
All based on reason, yet Plato offers limited rationale for his suggested
existence of a demiurge
Soul, Mind and Body
Philosophical language in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle:
Plato:
Viewed the soul as the essential and immaterial part of a human,
temporarily united with the body.
There is no material permanence in the word (ie Heraclitus) e.g plants grow
and die, great works of art are destroyed, therefore must exist in the
spiritual Realm of the Forms.
We all have immortal, simple (indestructible) souls that cast off their
physical bodies after death and choose a new life to inhabit- seen in
Plato’s ‘Myth of Er’.
Death is nothing to fear, just shaking of a physical shell to return to
the ‘pure essence’ of reality.
View of the body as mutable and constantly changing aligns with
science, as it has been found that every 7 years cells are replaced.
Therefore, our identity/thoughts/memories must seemingly stem
from elsewhere: our soul. This aligns with Locke’s argument that our
past memories are what links and keeps our identity as one.
Our souls have prior knowledge from the Realm of the Forms and ideas
about ideals.
Peter Geach: it does not make sense for the soul to see the Forms-
sight is a sense experience linked to the body. Plato humanises the
soul by suggesting that it has bodily functions like sight.
