Morality

[vulcanlogician]

-Vulcan.  Poor guy..he's trying to run some all or nothing gambit past you, lol?

Lol. I don't quite know what to make of our new friend. He seems to fundamentally misunderstand philosophy itself. I guess I'll have to break out the crayolas. It's kindergarten time!

I think if you're going to start pick and choosing what you want to retain in regards to Plato’s form of the Good, you’d have put some serious thought into how those parts relate, and whether the parts you like can be retained while rubbishing the parts you don’t.

Let's take a moment to examine Thales, the first great philosopher in the Greek tradition. Thales famously postulated that “everything is water.” This is, of course, absurd and incorrect. However, in my opinion, Thales is nonetheless rightly revered as a hero of Western philosophy. Why?

You see, his idea concerning water was a first step toward demystifying the truth. It was an attempt to see nature in terms of processes and properties rather than merely the whims of the gods. He predicted a solar eclipse. It takes a careful observation of nature to pull something like that off.  Keep Thales in mind as we proceed. And also keep in mind that he did some valuable philosophical work and got us closer to understanding the essence of matter, despite how wrong he was. Comprehending how a philosopher’s incorrect idea can positively influence intellectual progress is essential to a proper understanding of Plato’s important contributions to philosophy.

Let’s fast forward to Socrates. Socrates' chief motto, according to Plato, was “the only thing I know is that I know nothing.” This is a remarkably wise statement; it is at the very core of all philosophy, whether one is speaking of Platonic forms or Kantian ethics. And it’s essential to understanding what Plato was trying to accomplish by proposing any theory (like the theory of forms).

I’m not sure if you have actually read and appreciated Plato or if you are simply reading snippets of wiki articles and talking out of your ass. The latter seems to be the case because I usually connect with people who genuinely love Plato... even Christians. I find myself wondering if you have even a rudimentary grasp of Plato. Regardless, you may find the following excerpt from the Symposium relevant, if not beautiful:
 

Isn't it obvious by now, Socrates, that those who love wisdom are not wise nor ignorant but the ones in between, like Love himself. In addition, the young god Love loves wisdom because wisdom and knowledge are the most beautiful things we know of, and Love is always drawn to beauty. It follows that love must be a lover of wisdom and that all lovers of wisdom, that is, philosophers, like Love himself, are somewhere in between total ignorance and complete omniscience. 

(204 b-c)

Philosophy isn't about knowing things. Nor is it about influencing others' beliefs. It is about getting from ignorance to knowledge. It is a process by which one may travel from misunderstanding to clarity. But one of the key pitfalls is the notion that truth is "this or that particular thing." Truth isn't that simple.

Some say "if you believe my Bible, you will thereafter know the truth..." But this isn't the truth according to Plato. The truth doesn't come in "pellet form"... like... once you swallow that pellet you have a genuine understanding. No. It doesn't work like that.

What was Plato saying with the allegory of the cave? He was saying this: what most people take to be "the truth" is simply a distortion. An easy distortion. It takes effort to apprehend reality. It takes effort to turn away from illusion. It involves difficultly.

Not everyone is cut out for that shit. Most are just willing to go with "whatever Pastor Brown says is true." I mean, shit, they just got off work and they're on their way to a barbeque. They're trying to eat some ribs and have a good time. Monday, they gotta go back to work. And somewhere in there, raise their kids properly. Get their taxes paid... maybe have an affair. Most people are far more inclined to embrace the truth "that works" than the truth which accurately portrays reality. But Plato was not "most people." Nor did he give any kind of a fuck what "most people" are inclined to believe. He sought the truth.

Let’s start by asking which parts of Plato Conceptions of the Good have you removed?

Well, for one, in Meno, Plato (seemingly) hypothesizes that when we come to understand a particular a priori truth, such as a mathematical concept, that we actually "remember" this from a previous life. I reject this idea. Also, I see no reason to accept any doctrine of reincarnation, Platonic or otherwise. But it is quite possible that Plato himself didn't accept any particular doctrine of reincarnation. After all, the myth of Err (in Book X of the Republic) describes a sort of reincarnation wherein souls travel between Hades and Earth, Earth and Heaven, and Heaven and Hades. But in Phaedrus, Plato describes the soul as a flying chariot that descends to earth periodically due to the inclinations of one of its horses (desire). Afterwards, it ascends back to the heavenly domain in which the forms are beheld but invariably is pulled back down to earth due to the soul's desirous portion.

I reject both of these "doctrines" of reincarnation. I don't think either describes how the soul beholds the forms. For one thing, the two doctrines contradict one another. Therefore, I suspect, as do many scholars, that Plato's "theories" of reincarnation are (in fact) allegories. They aren't meant to be taken literally.

Back to the forms. Let's look at Aristotle for a second: Aristotle accepted the basic notion that there was an immaterial nature (or form) that accompanied matter. Thus form and matter (together) comprised an object's complete essence. This is something that (at its root) Plato accepts, but he takes his vision further. The forms, Plato says, are what is fundamental. Material reality (ie matter) merely "partakes" in a particular form. The thing itself is fundamental. Matter is simply a rough copy of these essential ideas. For instance, a perfect circle is intelligible to the intellect. One who is skilled in geometry understands the properties of a perfect circle. But no such thing as a perfect circle exists in the material world. However! Every circle found in material form has some of the properties of an "ideal circle." Certain mathematical truths that apply to all circles  apply to it. Any circle you draw on a piece of paper "partakes in the form" of a circle.

Same thing applies to morality. A "good deed" partakes in the form of the Good. Just like you can never draw a perfect circle, you can never live a perfect life. But if you ever set out to draw a perfect circle, there exists an ideal circle (which is only intelligible to the intellect) which your drawing of a circle uses as a standard. Likewise, a good life or a good deed refers to an ideal life or an ideal deed which it tries to approximate but will never fully achieve. This is what I accept concerning Plato's theory of forms. One thing I reject is Plato's hypothesis that we "recall" forms from exposure to them in a previous life.

Does that answer your question?