Plato

Plato Metaphysics and Epistemology

The great orator, Gorgias, says a man well trained in rhetoric gains "the power of ruling his fellow countrymen" because he can "speak and convince the masses."[1] 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?

To find out what Plato thought about this see: Why Good Oratory Isn't Always Good: An Interview with Plato

Realm of Being / Realm of Becoming

Plato synthesizes two opposing Metaphysics:

Heraclitus- world of our experience is constantly changing.
Parmenides- reality (Being) must be eternal and unchanging (therefore not the same as the world of our experience.)

Also, he barrows heavily from Pythagoras: -we have a priori knowledge of pure forms which are constant and unchanging.

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).

Key to understanding Plato’s Metaphysics is his distinction between the

"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= "edios"

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 any, on the face of it at least, you are making an existential claim. You are claiming that “There IS something.” Or rather “There IS some thing.” 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.

Like perfect examples, blueprints, definitions of particular reality.

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)

Natural Kinds (Dogs, Trees, etc.)

*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.

Individual cats are cats (and not say, dogs) because the 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 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 then) the Forms.

Note: Any particular courageous act DEPENDS on there being a FORM of courage. Thus, according to Plato, the forms are metaphysically prior to the particulars.

The Ultimate Reality (The Forms) is “reflected in/ shadowed by” the constantly changing (less perfect) world of our experience. Plato refers to this as "The Realm of Becoming"

Forms are themselves arranged into a hierarchy, the arch form being the Form of the Good.

Plato refers to the world of our experience, the “visible realm.”

“The Realm of Becoming”

Realm of Material Objects (The Visible)

Level of reality which we experience through our senses

Residents of the Realm of Becoming Include:

Particular things, (e.g. actual dogs, trees, houses)

Triangles 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.

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.

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.” [2]

Therefore:

Plato believes that our Consciousness (Soul/ Mind/ Psyche) predates of 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 to 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 here 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. True reality lies in the forms alone, so the only certain knowledge possible is knowledge of the forms. (most particularly in the "Form of the Good"). Since the realm of becoming is a shadow-image of the true reality. The relationship between the two realms is illustrated in is famous “Analogy of the Cave.”

"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 theither, and again seems as if it lacked reason."[3]

The “Divided Line”

In the Republic, Book VI, 507C, 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 [DE], so is this (sc. the sun) in the visible world to vision [AB] and the objects of vision [BC].” [4]

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." But the ultimate reason why will always be lodged in the world of the intellect. 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.

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 or 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 or attention and service) is the immaterial aspect- the psyche or immortal soul. It is the only thing about you that could possible survive the death of the physical body.

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).” [5] 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) 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 exits in the world of sense objects, but of which beautiful objects are mere imperfect copies. 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.[6] 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, sometime 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).

“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.[7]

[2] Introduction to Plato Selections, ed. Raphael Demos (1927) http://www.ditext.com/demos/plato.html

[6] “The tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, is thrice removed from the throne of truth.” The Republic Book X

[7] Plato’s Republic Book X http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#2H_4_0008