The Plato Thread

[vulcanlogician]

Any Plato fans in the house? Or detractors?

I'm creating this thread because the Aquinas thread was drifting into discussions about Plato. So this thread is for analyzing texts you may be reading (or have read), or for just anything Plato-related you may want to discuss. Neo-Platonism is up for discussion too.

As many of you know, I'm a huge Plato fan. I think his best books are Republic, Symposium, and Apology.

I think the key to understanding Plato (especially when contemplating his early/middle works) is that he's not trying to fill your head with ideas. He's trying to get you to think about things... to shake you out of your learned perspective on things... and offer a new perspective for consideration.

Have you read anything by Plato that you find particularly interesting? If so, what book? And what interested you about it?

[emjay]

Hey vulc, invitation accepted

As you know, so far I've read Meno, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and am partway through book 4 of Republic... but I need a bit of a refresher because I've been in Aristotle mode for the last few days, so this thread will at least give me an excuse to switch between them

As you've said elsewhere, there's a lot to disagree with on the face of it in Republic, with their conception of the ideal State, but to be honest I didn't really think I was in a position to make those sorts of judgments until I'd read the whole thing... in other words I was waiting for the punchline. But yeah, if we're just taking it at face value, where I'm up to so far I agree it's made me shake my head a few times... for instance, the level of censorship is extraordinary, right down to the level of not producing certain instruments (or parts of instruments) because of the sort of music they might be able to make.

As I said though, I'm a bit out of the loop at the moment, so I've forgotten the finer points, but as I'm understanding it so far, all of this in aid of basically teaching... or in this case indoctrinating/forcing... moderation in all things... basically Virtue, and with this State aiming to personify Justice.

So the sorts of questions it seems to be asking are to what extent is Virtue teachable... as clearly they do not believe it to be innate, where I take Virtue really to mean, the wisdom/experience to tread that 'Golden Mean/Golden Middle Way' between deficiency and excess... but where arguably if the only reason you've been able to tread that line is through censorship and prohibitions, have you really learnt anything? Ie if the only reason you don't get pissed every night is because the pubs are closed , is that really Temperance? Granted I know in one sense, all this in The Republic is aimed at teaching the young... ie the young are generally excessive by nature, as well as impressionable, so censorship/prohibition makes more sense for them, just as it does in the modern world, but there's another example which doesn't appear to be about teaching the young specifically, and that is to do with a profession; ie how will the potter's art, be affected by either poverty or wealth, the answer to both being negatively, so in attempting to prevent either extreme, that would appear to me censorship/prohibition of the general populace, not just the young. As I said, I'm only up to book 4 so far, and it's not fresh in my mind either right now, so I'm sure there's plenty more nuance to get out of it, including as I said, the punchline... or big picture, but since you put me on the spot , those are my thoughts at the moment.

[no one]

You spelled Play Doh wrong.

[Angrboda]

I love Plato! He's one of my favorite characters!

[The Architect Of Fate]

[Brian37]

Any Plato fans in the house? Or detractors?

I'm creating this thread because the Aquinas thread was drifting into discussions about Plato. So this thread is for analyzing texts you may be reading (or have read), or for just anything Plato-related you may want to discuss. Neo-Platonism is up for discussion too.

As many of you know, I'm a huge Plato fan. I think his best books are Republic, Symposium, and Apology.

I think the key to understanding Plato (especially when contemplating his early/middle works) is that he's not trying to fill your head with ideas. He's trying to get you to think about things... to shake you out of your learned perspective on things... and offer a new perspective for consideration.

Have you read anything by Plato that you find particularly interesting? If so, what book? And what interested you about it?

I was a huge Plato fan too, but Dawkins managed to knock him down a couple of pegs for me in his preface in "The Greatest Show On Earth". In it Dawkins blames Plato for humanity's chase for perfection which he claims infected politics and religion because of Plato's idea of "essence". "Essence" to Plato according to Dawkins was the idea that if you just thought about something long enough you could find that perfect thing, or idea. 

I still like Plato's Apology and Allegory Of The Cave. But I do agree with Dawkins that Plato unwittingly infected humans with more tribalism and division because his "essence" idea became popular.

[vulcanlogician]

As you've said elsewhere, there's a lot to disagree with on the face of it in Republic, with their conception of the ideal State, but to be honest I didn't really think I was in a position to make those sorts of judgments until I'd read the whole thing... in other words I was waiting for the punchline.

I do not endorse this way of reading Plato. Don't wait for the punchline. There really is no keystone to the arch that makes it all better. Plato's vision is problematic in many ways. And I think even Plato realized this.

I recommend disagreeing with Plato (ie. "Socrates") whenever an idea is presented that you don't like. Whenever an interlocutor says "Quite true, Socrates" you should say to yourself, "Is that really true?" And if you disagree, think about WHY you disagree, and follow your own thinking on the matter. Anyway, that's how *I* like to read Plato.

but I need a bit of a refresher because I've been in Aristotle mode for the last few days

Here's a sketch of ideas/analysis for Book 4:

---

Remember what Bel said in the other thread about Plato's city being an allegory for the soul? That's what book 4 is all about. Remember that what we are trying to do is discover what justice is. Plato thinks that by observing how an ideal city functions that we can understand what justice is.

So we have three classes in Plato's ideal city: producers, auxilluries, and guardians. (Actually the auxiliaries are guardians too, but scholars call them auxiliaries to distinguish them from the philosopher class). The guardians are forbidden from owning property of any kind. They share all things in common. Even their wives. As you'll learn in book 5, Plato thinks even women are fit to be philosopher-kings. A very progressive idea, especially for the Greeks who typically thought women were unfit to participate in public life at all.

Anyway, back to the three classes. The guardians are the decision-makers. The auxiliaries are the warriors, and the producers are the workers and wealth-owners. These correspond to different parts of the soul. Plato believed that our souls have three parts, hence the three classes of citizens. You don't have to buy into the idea of an immaterial soul to accept Plato's assessment of things (although Plato himself very much believed in an immaterial soul). You could rather see it as commentary on our "mental life" and attribute the three parts of the soul to brain function. That's what I do. I read Plato through a materialist lens, and I still think much of what he says is on point.

The three parts of the soul are appetite, emotion, and reason. Think about it this way: you know when you get angry about something and (when you look at things logically) you know you shouldn't really be angry. Plato takes that as evidence that our emotional systems are separate from our logical systems. Same with appetite. When you want a cupcake, you feel desire for it. That's independent of your emotions and logic. You can't "think away" your desire to consume a cupcake. And actually, neuroscience kinda backs Plato up. The emotion centers and desire centers work independently of the frontal lobes. But Plato making correct assessments about neuroscience isn't really the point.

The point is, just like in the city, the decision-making in life ought to be relegated to the logical part of your "soul." But also, remember that the goal in Plato's city is to make the whole city happy. The decisions you make in life should be oriented toward making your desirous (or appetitive) part of yourself happy. Your emotional part should also be happy. Letting the logical part of yourself rule is the only way to achieve this. After all, if you are ruled by your emotions or appetites this will eventually lead to unhappiness (at least that's what Plato thinks).

It sounds like you are on the part about the 4 virtues. The analysis of the soul (as I've been giving here) is the second part of book 4.

---

[Neo-Scholastic]

More partial to Plotinus myself but still curious to see where the discussion leads.

[emjay]

As you've said elsewhere, there's a lot to disagree with on the face of it in Republic, with their conception of the ideal State, but to be honest I didn't really think I was in a position to make those sorts of judgments until I'd read the whole thing... in other words I was waiting for the punchline.

I do not endorse this way of reading Plato. Don't wait for the punchline. There really is no keystone to the arch that makes it all better. Plato's vision is problematic in many ways. And I think even Plato realized this.

I recommend disagreeing with Plato (ie. "Socrates") whenever an idea is presented that you don't like. Whenever an interlocutor says "Quite true, Socrates" you should say to yourself, "Is that really true?" And if you disagree, think about WHY you disagree, and follow your own thinking on the matter. Anyway, that's how *I* like to read Plato.

It's more the fact that I'm a relative newbie to all this... still learning the ropes and the vernacular... so I feel more comfortable trying to get the gist of things first - with a full read-through, before delving in and taking issue with things without knowing how relevant they are. That's just how I generally do things but fair enough it's probably not the best idea, at least all the time, since for instance a single gist-getting read-through of Aristotle looks like it could take me months  

but I need a bit of a refresher because I've been in Aristotle mode for the last few days

Here's a sketch of ideas/analysis for Book 4:

---

Remember what Bel said in the other thread about Plato's city being an allegory for the soul? That's what book 4 is all about. Remember that what we are trying to do is discover what justice is. Plato thinks that by observing how an ideal city functions that we can understand what justice is.

So we have three classes in Plato's ideal city: producers, auxilluries, and guardians. (Actually the auxiliaries are guardians too, but scholars call them auxiliaries to distinguish them from the philosopher class). The guardians are forbidden from owning property of any kind. They share all things in common. Even their wives. As you'll learn in book 5, Plato thinks even women are fit to be philosopher-kings. A very progressive idea, especially for the Greeks who typically thought women were unfit to participate in public life at all.

Anyway, back to the three classes. The guardians are the decision-makers. The auxiliaries are the warriors, and the producers are the workers and wealth-owners. These correspond to different parts of the soul. Plato believed that our souls have three parts, hence the three classes of citizens. You don't have to buy into the idea of an immaterial soul to accept Plato's assessment of things (although Plato himself very much believed in an immaterial soul). You could rather see it as commentary on our "mental life" and attribute the three parts of the soul to brain function. That's what I do. I read Plato through a materialist lens, and I still think much of what he says is on point.

The three parts of the soul are appetite, emotion, and reason. Think about it this way: you know when you get angry about something and (when you look at things logically) you know you shouldn't really be angry. Plato takes that as evidence that our emotional systems are separate from our logical systems. Same with appetite. When you want a cupcake, you feel desire for it. That's independent of your emotions and logic. You can't "think away" your desire to consume a cupcake. And actually, neuroscience kinda backs Plato up. The emotion centers and desire centers work independently of the frontal lobes. But Plato making correct assessments about neuroscience isn't really the point.

The point is, just like in the city, the decision-making in life ought to be relegated to the logical part of your "soul." But also, remember that the goal in Plato's city is to make the whole city happy. The decisions you make in life should be oriented toward making your desirous (or appetitive) part of yourself happy. Your emotional part should also be happy. Letting the logical part of yourself rule is the only way to achieve this. After all, if you are ruled by your emotions or appetites this will eventually lead to unhappiness (at least that's what Plato thinks).

It sounds like you are on the part about the 4 virtues. The analysis of the soul (as I've been giving here) is the second part of book 4.

---

Thanks for the low down... it is a bit ahead of me, but I don't mind the 'spoilers' Though I haven't got to it in my reading yet, I think what you're talking about re the three parts of the soul was covered in one of the videos I watched in that playlist, which basically said, similar to what you're saying, that you have the logical part, that like you say can't speak to your appetites directly, but it does 'speak the same language' as your emotions, to some extent, in that you can use pure reason to work out what might be good for you or whatever, but you can also use reason for instance to talk yourself down as it were, if you get overly emotional, or talk yourself out of things that are not good for you or whatever - if you're mindful/self-aware enough. So inasmuch as general life is emotional... ie even the purely rational person cannot avoid emotions, nor even tries to... then as I understand it, that's basically the staging ground for Virtue... ie it's about the decisions you make while in the thick of it, living life. So to the extent that he's basically saying (or maybe this is Aristotle later on in his Virtue Ethics) you can train and habituate good decision-making in the thick of it, I think that is a pretty cool idea. I could certainly do with being a bit more mindful in the thick of it, as the size of my waistline attests (not huge, but, could be better)

But as to how he reaches the conclusion of how all parts can be happy through logic alone, I'm interested to see, and for that I do think I'll need to read the whole thing.

[Astreja]

I'm very new to Plato - about halfway through Republic at the moment. Not a fan of the "Let's restrict what the playwrights and poets can say in our city" concept, or the idea that people should only work at one particular occupation and not dabble in others. Even if it's allegory, there's something rather creepy about it.