Difference between revisions of "Plato" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m
(11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Contracted}}
+
{{Copyedited}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}
{{otheruses}}
 
'''Plato''' ([[Greek language|Greek]]: '''Πλάτων''', ''Plátōn'', "wide, broad-shouldered") (c. [[427 B.C.E.|427]]–c. [[347 B.C.E.]]), whose real name is believed to have been '''Aristocles''', was an immensely influential ancient [[Greeks|Greek]] [[philosopher]], a student of [[Socrates]], writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the [[Academy]] in [[Athens]] where [[Aristotle]] studied.
 
  
Plato lectured extensively at the Academy, and wrote on many philosophical issues, dealing especially in [[political philosophy|politics]], [[ethics]], [[metaphysics]], and [[epistemology]]. The most important writings of Plato are his [[Plato#Bibliography|dialogue]]s, although some [[Plato#Bibliography|letter]]s have come down to us under his name. It is believed that all of Plato's authentic dialogues survive. However, some dialogues ascribed to Plato by the Greeks are now considered by the consensus of scholars to be either suspect (e.g., ''[[First Alcibiades]]'', ''[[Clitophon (dialogue)|Clitophon]]'') or probably spurious (such as ''[[Demodocus (dialogue)|Demodocus]]'', or the ''[[Second Alcibiades]]''). The letters are all considered to probably be spurious, with the possible exception of the Seventh Letter.
+
[[Image:Platon-2b.jpg|thumb|right|250px|'''Plato''']]
 
+
'''Plato''' (c. 428 B.C.E. – c. 348 B.C.E.) was a [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] and is perhaps the most famous and influential thinker in the history of Western thought. He was a student of [[Socrates]] and a teacher of [[Aristotle]]. He founded the [[Platonic Academy|Academy]] in [[Athens]] where he lectured and taught. He also wrote dialogues on a variety of philosophical subjects such as [[metaphysics]], [[epistemology]], [[ethics]], [[psychology]], [[politics]], and [[aesthetics]]. Because he wrote in dialogue rather than treatise form, however, his ideas on these subjects are not systematically analyzed but presented in the more ambiguous and ironic form of the drama. This has resulted in a variety of interpretations of Plato’s work and debates continue today over the precise meanings of his main philosophical ideas.
[[Socrates]] is often a character in Plato's dialogues. How much of the content and argument of any given dialogue is Socrates' point of view, and how much of it is Plato's, is heavily disputed, since Socrates himself did not write anything; this is often referred to as the "[[Socratic problem]]". However, Plato was doubtless strongly influenced by Socrates' teachings, so many of the ideas presented, at least in his early works, were probably borrowings or adaptations.
+
{{toc}}
 +
Among the most famous of his philosophical contributions are the accounts he provides of his teacher Socrates and the Socratic method of teaching, his doctrine of the Ideas or “forms,” his theory of recollection, and his notion of dialectic as collection and division. His ''Republic'' remains one of the classic works in all of western [[civilization]].  
  
 
== Biography ==
 
== Biography ==
Plato was born in Athens in May or December in [[428 B.C.E.|428]] or [[427 B.C.E.]] (like all the other early western philosophers, his birthdate is not exactly known). He was raised in a moderately well-to-do aristocratic family. His father was named [[Ariston (Athenian)|Ariston]], and his mother [[Perictione]]. His family claimed descent from the ancient [[King of Athens|Athenian kings]], and he was related – though there is disagreement as to exactly how – to the prominent politician [[Critias]]. According to a late [[Hellenistic]] account by [[Diogenes Laertius]], Plato's given name was ''Aristocles'', whereas his [[wrestling]] coach, [[Ariston of Argos]], dubbed him "Platon", meaning "broad" on account of his robust figure. Diogenes mentions alternative accounts that Plato derived his name from the breadth (''platutês'') of his eloquence, or else because he was very wide (''platus'') across the forehead. According to [[Dicaearchus]], Plato wrestled at the [[Isthmian games]]. Such was his learning and ability that the ancient Greeks declared him to be the son of [[Apollo]] and told how, in his infancy, bees had settled on his lips, as prophecy of the honeyed words which were to flow from them.
+
Plato was born in [[Athens]] in approximately 428 B.C.E.. He was raised in a moderately wealthy, aristocratic family with high political connections. His father was named [[Ariston]] and his mother Perictione. According to a late Hellenistic account by [[Diogenes Laertius]], Plato's given name was Aristocles. Various alternatives are offered at how Plato received his name. One possibility is that his wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, dubbed him "Platon" (meaning "broad") on account of his robust figure. Another alternative is that his name derived from the breadth ''(platutês)'' of his eloquence, and still a third from the fact that he was very wide ''(platus)'' across the forehead. In any case, in his youth Plato was a gifted wrestler and his intellectual abilities were so advanced that his fellow Greeks declared him to be the son of [[Apollo]]. In fact, it was rumored that in his infancy [[bee]]s had settled on his lips as a [[prophecy]] of the honeyed words which would flow from them.
  
Plato became a pupil of Socrates in his youth, and – at least according to his own account – he attended his master's trial and execution. He was deeply affected by the city's treatment of Socrates, and much of his early work records his memories of his teacher. It is suggested that much of his [[ethic|ethical]] writing is in pursuit of a society where similar injustices could not occur. During the twelve years following the death of Socrates, he traveled extensively in [[Italy]], [[Sicily]], [[Egypt]], and [[Cyrene]] in a quest for knowledge.
+
At some point in his youth Plato became a devoted pupil of [[Socrates]], the famous “wandering scholar” who sat on the street corners of Athens and engaged the young men of the city in intellectual discussions. It was primarily through the texts of Plato, in fact, that we learn of the life, teachings, and death of Socrates. It is considered a matter of record that Plato attended his master's trial and execution so that the ''Apology'', although written in dramatic form is nonetheless considered to be a fairly accurate historical account. Moreover as he was deeply affected by the city's unfair treatment of Socrates much of Plato’s work is devoted to the problem of social and political injustice. During the twelve years following the death of Socrates, Plato traveled extensively throughout [[Italy]], [[Sicily]], [[Egypt]], and [[Cyrene]]. During his travels, however, he did not merely wander about in search of pleasure but rather engaged in a sustained and comprehensive quest for knowledge.
  
After his return to Athens at the age of forty, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools in Western civilization on a plot of land in the Grove of Academe. The [[Academy]] was "a large enclosure of ground which was once the property of a citizen at Athens named [[Academus]]... some, however, say that it received its name from an ancient hero" (Robinson, ''Arch. Graec.'' I i 16), and it operated until [[529|529 C.E.]], when it was closed by [[Justinian I]] of [[Byzantium]], who saw it as a threat to the propagation of [[Christianity]]. Many intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being [[Aristotle]].
+
After his return to Athens at the age of 40, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools in Western civilization on a plot of land in the grove of Academe. [[Platonic Academy|The “Academy,”]] as it was famously called, was a large, protected plot of land that was supposedly named after either an Athenian citizen named Academus or else some [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] hero. The school operated until 529 C.E., which makes it the longest running academic institution in the history of western civilization. Many intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Plato’s pupil [[Aristotle]].
  
Plato was also deeply influenced by a number of prior philosophers, including: the [[Pythagoreans]], whose notions of numerical [[harmony]] have clear echoes in Plato's notion of [[the Forms]]; [[Anaxagoras]], who taught Socrates and who held that the [[mind]], or [[reason]], pervades everything; and [[Parmenides]], who argued for the unity of all things and may have influenced Plato's concept of the [[soul]].
+
Plato died around 348 B.C.E. at the age of 80 or 81.
  
== Work ==
+
== Dialogue as a Philosophical Form ==
 +
[[Image:Plato-raphael.jpg|thumb|left|[[Raphael]]'s Plato in ''The School of Athens'' fresco, probably in the likeness of [[Leonardo da Vinci]]. Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in “the Forms.”]]
 +
Although not the first [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[philosophy|philosopher]], Plato is arguably the most famous and influential; the twentieth-century philosopher [[Alfred North Whitehead]] famously said that the history of philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato.
  
[[Image:Plato-raphael.jpg|thumb|left|[[Raphael]]'s Plato in ''[[The School of Athens]]'' fresco, probably in the likeness of [[Leonardo da Vinci]]. Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in [[The Forms]].]]
+
One of the main reasons for Plato’s primacy is that in Plato we have the first collected body of philosophical literature. Unlike [[Socrates]], who did not write at all and unlike the [[Pre-Socratic philosophy|pre-Socratics]] whose writings are retained in fragmented form in Plato, there is a body of work which scholars have pored over for centuries. Interestingly, however, unlike Aristotle, Plato did not write in the form of philosophical treatises; rather he chose to write in the dramatic form of dialogue. Although the specific dialogues differ in various ways, in general they approach philosophical subjects through the conversation of characters, who pose questions to one another. In most of the dialogues Socrates figures as the protagonist and a number of interlocutors are defeated by his logical form of questioning initially known as “elenchus” and later in the more sophisticated form called “dialectic.
  
=== Themes ===
+
Some scholars believe that the nature of the dialogues changed a great deal over the course of Plato's life. According to this theory, works believed to date from earlier in Plato's life are more closely based on Socrates' thought, whereas later writings increasingly break away from the views of his former teacher. This theory holds that in the so-called middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own philosophy, and the question-and-answer style is more formal: the main figure represents Plato and the minor characters have little to say except "yes," "of course" and "very true," or "by [[Zeus]], yes." The late dialogues, then, read more like treatises, and Socrates is often absent or quiet. It is assumed by defenders of this theory that while some of the early dialogues could be based on Socrates' actual conversations, the later dialogues were written entirely by Plato. The question of which, if any, of the dialogues are truly Socratic is known as the “Socratic problem.
Unlike Socrates, Plato wrote down philosophical thoughts, leaving behind a considerable number of manuscripts.
 
  
In Plato's writings are debates concerning the best possible form of [[government]], featuring adherents of [[aristocracy]], [[democracy]], [[monarchy]], as well as other issues. A central theme is the conflict between [[nature]] and [[Convention (norm)|convention]], concerning the role of [[heredity]] and the [[environmental psychology|environment]] on human [[intelligence (trait)|intelligence]] and [[personality]] long before the modern "[[nature versus nurture]]" debate began in the time of [[Thomas Hobbes]] and [[John Locke]], with its modern continuation in such controversial works as ''[[The Mismeasure of Man]]'' and ''[[The Bell Curve]]''.
+
Given that he wrote in the artistic style of a dialogue means that to some extent Plato can be considered a [[poetry|poet]] as much as a [[philosophy|philosopher]]. This makes the reader’s interpretation of Plato’s texts more ambiguous and problematic, for the form of dialogue distances both Plato (as author) and the given reader from the ideas that are being discussed in the text.
  
Another theme in Plato's writing is the distinction between [[knowledge]] and true [[belief]]. From this, problems, ideas, and arguments arose which continue to be debated by modern philosophers. Unlike most modern writers, Plato argued that the main difference between knowledge and true belief was the nature of their objects: knowledge was of eternal truths (later, the Forms), while true belief was of ephemeral, contingent truths.
+
For this reason, scholars tend to read the dialogues in one of two ways. Some scholars choose to participate in the dialogues by concentrating on the ideas and [[argument]]s under discussion and in doing so ignore the “aesthetic” aspects, such as the personalities of the different characters, the use of [[irony]], and the specific contexts in which the discussions take place. Other scholars, however, read the personalities, ironies, and contexts as contributing to the philosophical meanings contained within the text as well as Plato’s overall understanding of philosophical discourse. In doing this, the latter often interpret Plato as putting unpopular opinions in the mouth of unsympathetic characters (such as with Thrasymachus in the ''Republic''). In this way, Plato lets his readers observe and compare the conversations that Socrates has with different characters and so ponder why some of these conversations are more fruitful than others.
  
<!-- This isn't a theme.
+
=== Chronology ===
The story of the lost city or continent of [[Atlantis]] came to us as an illustrative story told by Plato in his ''[[Timaeus]]'' and ''[[Critias]]''.
+
The exact order in which Plato's dialogues were written is not known, nor is the extent to which some might have been later revised and rewritten. However, according to scholars there is enough information internal to the dialogues to form a rough chronology, although the exact criteria to determine this chronology are often disputed. In any case, as mentioned above the dialogues are normally grouped into three fairly distinct periods, with a few of them considered transitional works, and some just difficult to place. So although the ordering is still highly disputed, the generally agreed upon chronology is divided into early, middle, and late dialogues.
—>
 
Plato also had a position on the art of writing as opposed to oral communication. This is evidenced in his dialogue ''[[Phaedrus (Plato)|Phaedrus]]''<ref>Plato, ''Phaedrus'', "the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which the written word is properly no more than an image"</ref> and his Seventh Epistle.<ref>Plato, [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/seventh_letter.html ''Seventh Epistle''], "Therefore every man of worth, when dealing with matters of worth, will be far from exposing them to ill feeling and misunderstanding among men by committing them to writing."</ref> He said that oral communication is superior to the written word, especially in the accuracy of the oral word over the written word and in his Seventh Epistle that nothing of importance should be written down but transmitted orally.
 
  
=== Form and Basis ===
+
==== Early dialogues ====
Plato wrote mainly in the form known as [[dialogue]]. In certain dialogues, postulated by some scholars as being earlier than others, several characters discuss a topic by asking questions of one another. Socrates figures prominently, and a lively, more disorganised form of ''[[elenchos]]''/[[dialectic]] is present; these are called the [[Socratic Dialogue]]s.
+
[[Socrates]] figures in all of these dialogues, and they are generally considered to be the most faithful representations of the historical Socrates; hence they are also called the “Socratic dialogues.” Most of them consist of Socrates discussing a subject, often an ethical one (such as friendship or piety) with a friend or with some presumed expert on the subject. Through a series of pointed questions Socrates usually demonstrates his interlocutor’s ignorance. These dialogues usually end inconclusively and so the reader is left to figure out how much Socrates (or the reader) really understands. These dialogues tend to be considered examples of Socrates’ method of "indirect teaching,” which allows readers to come to answers themselves without being directly told. This period also includes several pieces surrounding the trial and execution of Socrates. The dialogues from this period are as follows:
  
Some scholars believe that the nature of the dialogues changed a great deal over the course of Plato's life. According to this theory,  works believed to date from earlier in Plato's life are more closely based on Socrates' thought, whereas later writing increasingly breaks away from the views of his former teacher. This theory holds that in so-called middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own philosophy, and the question-and-answer style is more ''[[pro forma]]'': the main figure represents Plato and the minor characters have little to say except "yes", "of course" and "very true", or "by Zeus, yes". The dialogues designated by this theory as late read more like [[treatise]]s, and Socrates is often absent or quiet. It is assumed by believers of this theory that while some of the early dialogues could be based on Socrates' actual conversations, the later dialogues were written entirely by Plato. The question of which, if any, of the dialogues are truly Socratic is known as the [[Socratic problem]].
+
* ''Apology''  
 +
* ''Crito''
 +
* ''Charmides''
 +
* ''Laches''
 +
* ''Lysis''
 +
* ''Euthyphro''
 +
* ''Menexenus''
 +
* ''Lesser Hippias''
 +
* ''Ion''  
  
The ostensible ''[[mise en scène]]'' of a dialogue distances both Plato and a given reader from the philosophy being discussed; one can choose between at least two options of [[perception]]: either to participate in the dialogues, in the [[idea]]s being discussed, or choose to see the [[content]] as expressive of the personalities contained within the work.
+
The following dialogues are variously considered transitional or middle period dialogues:
  
The dialogue format allows Plato to put unpopular opinions in the mouth of unsympathetic characters, such as [[Thrasymachus]] in ''[[Republic (Plato)|The Republic]]''.  On one level, it also gives readers an opportunity to observe and compare the conversations that different youths and men have with Socrates.
+
* ''Gorgias''
 +
* ''Protagoras''
 +
* ''Meno''
  
==Metaphysics==
+
==== Middle dialogues ====
[[Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Detail of [[The School of Athens]] by [[Raffaello Sanzio]], 1509, showing Plato (pointing upwards, as if to the Form of the Good) and [[Aristotle]] (holding his hand palm down to Earth, favouring material evidence).]]
+
Late in the early dialogues, Plato's [[Socrates]] actually begins supplying direct answers to some of the questions he poses and so puts forth positive doctrines on the subject under discussion. That is, he offers “hypotheses” or scientific regarding the various subject matter. This is generally interpreted to be the first appearance of Plato's own views. The perhaps most prominent idea offered in the middle dialogues is the idea that knowledge derives from unchanging forms or essences (“Doctrine of Ideas”). Other Platonic theories include the immortality of the soul, recollection, and specific doctrines about justice, truth, and beauty. The ''Symposium'' and the ''Republic'' are considered to be the centerpieces of Plato's middle period.
Platonism has traditionally been interpreted as a form of metaphysical [[dualism]] {{fact}}, sometimes referred to as Platonic realism, and is regarded as one of the earlier representatives of metaphysical [[objective idealism]].<ref>[http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_12/philosophy_questions_12.html]</ref> According to this reading, Plato's metaphysics divides the world into two distinct aspects: the intelligible world of "forms", and the perceptual world we see around us. The perceptual world consists of imperfect copies of the intelligible forms or [[idea]]s. These forms are unchangeable and perfect, and are only comprehensible by the use of the intellect or understanding, that is, a capacity of the mind that does not include [[perception|sense-perception]] or [[imagination]]. This division can also be found in [[Zoroaster|Zoroastrian]] philosophy, in which the dichotomy is referenced as the ''Minu'' (intelligence) and ''Giti'' (perceptual) worlds. The [[Zoroastrian]] ideal city, Shahrivar, also exhibits certain similarities with Plato's ''Republic''. The existence and direction of influence here is uncertain; while [[Zoroaster]] lived well before Plato, few of the earliest writings of Zoroastrianism survive unaltered.
 
  
In the ''Republic'' Books VI and VII, Plato uses a number of [[metaphor]]s to explain his metaphysical views: the [[Plato's metaphor of the sun|metaphor of the sun]], the well-known [[Plato's allegory of the cave|allegory of the cave]], and most explicitly, [[the divided line of Plato|the divided line]].
+
* ''Euthydemus''
 +
* ''Cratylus''
 +
* ''Phaedo''
 +
* ''Phaedrus''
 +
* ''Symposium''
 +
* ''Republic''  
 +
* ''Theaetetus''
 +
* ''Parmenides''  
  
Taken together, these metaphors convey a complex, and, in places,difficult theory: there is something called [[The Form of the Good]] (often interpreted as Plato's god), which is the ultimate object of [[knowledge]] and which, as it were, sheds light on all the other forms (i.e., [[universal (metaphysics)|universals]]: [[abstraction|abstract]] [[kind (word)|kinds]] and [[attribute]]s), and from which all other forms "emanate". The Form of the Good does this in somewhat the same way as the sun sheds light on, or makes visible and "generates" things, in the perceptual world.
+
==== Late Dialogues ====
 
+
In the ''Parmenides'' Plato presents a series of criticisms of his “Doctrine of Ideas,which are often taken to indicate Plato's abandonment of this theory, though some scholars have challenged this characterization. In most of the remaining dialogues, however, the theory is either absent or at least appears under a different guise in discussions about kinds or classes of things. In these later dialogues Socrates is either absent or a minor figure in the discussion. An apparently new method for doing dialectic known as "collection and division" is also featured, most notably in the ''Sophist'' and ''Statesman''.
In the perceptual world, the particular objects we see around us bear only a dim resemblance to the more ultimately real forms of Plato's intelligible world; it is as if we are seeing shadows of cut-out shapes on the walls of a cave, which are mere representations of the [[reality]] outside the cave, illuminated by the sun.
 
 
 
We can imagine everything in the [[universe]] represented on a line of increasing reality; it is divided once unevenly, and then once again in each of the resulting parts in the same ratio as the first division (Regardless of the ratio, the two midddle sections of the line are equal). The first division represents that between the intelligible and the perceptual worlds. This is followed by a corresponding division in each of these worlds: the segment representing the perceptual world is divided into segments representing "real things" on the one hand, and shadows, reflections, and representations of those things on the other. Similarly, the segment representing the intelligible world is divided into segments representing [[first principle]]s and most general forms, on the one hand, and more derivative, "reflected" forms, on the other. (See [[the divided line of Plato]])
 
 
 
Plato's metaphysics, and particularly its [[dualism]] between the intelligible and the perceptual, would inspire later [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonist]] thinkers, such as [[Plotinus]] and [[Gnosticism|Gnostics]], and many other metaphysical realists. Although Platonist philosophers like Plotinus rejected Gnosticism (see Plotinus' ''[[Enneads]]''). One reason being the Gnostic vilification of nature and Plato's [[demiurge]] from ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''. Plato also influenced [[Saint Justin Martyr]]. For more on Platonic realism in general, see [[Platonic realism]] and [[the Forms]].
 
 
 
Although this interpretation of Plato's writings (particularly the ''Republic'') has enjoyed immense popularity throughout the long history of Western philosophy, it is also possible to interpret his suggestions more conservatively, favoring a more epistemological than metaphysical reading of such famous metaphors as the Cave and the Divided Line. There are obvious parallels between the Cave allegory and the life of Plato's teacher [[Socrates]] (who was killed in his attempt to "open the eyes" of the Athenians). This example reveals the dramatic complexity that often lies under the surface of Plato's writing (remember that in the ''Republic'', it is Socrates who relates the story).
 
===Universals===
 
[[Plato|Plato]]'s own articulation of the [[realism|realism]] regarding the existence of [[universals|universals]] is expounded in his ''[[Republic (Plato)|The Republic]]'' and elsewhere, notably in the ''[[Phaedo]]'', the ''[[Phaedrus (Plato)|Phaedrus]]'', the ''[[Meno (Plato)|Meno]]'', and the ''[[Parmenides (Plato)|Parmenides]]''.
 
 
 
In Platonic realism, ''[[universal (metaphysics)|universals]]'' do not exist in the way that ordinary physical objects exist, but were originally thought to have a sort of ghostly or heavenly mode of existence. However, more modern versions of the theory do not apply such potentially misleading descriptions to universals. Instead, such versions maintain that it is meaningless (or a [[category mistake]]) to apply the categories of space and time to ''universals''.
 
 
 
Regardless of their description, Platonic realism holds that ''universals'' do exist in a broad, abstract sense, although not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with ''universals'', but in order to conceive of universals, one must be able to conceive of these abstract forms.
 
Most modern Platonists avoid the possible ambiguity by never claiming that ''universals'' exist, but "merely" that they ''are''.
 
 
 
====Theories of ''universals''====
 
Theories of ''universals'', including Platonic realism, are challenged to satisfy the certain [[problem of universals|constraints on theories of ''universals'']].
 
 
 
Of those constraints, Platonic realism strongly satisfies one, in that it is a theory of what general terms refer to. ''Forms'' are ideal in supplying meaning to referents for general terms. That is, to understand terms such as ''applehood'' and ''redness'', Platonic realism says that they refer to ''forms''. Indeed, Platonism gets much of its plausibility because mentioning ''redness'', for example, seems to be referring to something that is apart from space and time, but which has lots of specific instances.
 
 
 
====Forms====
 
One type of ''universal'' defined by Plato is the ''[[Theory of forms|form]]'' or ''idea''. Although some versions of Platonic realism regard Plato's ''forms'' as ideas in the mind of [[God]], most take ''forms'' not to be mental entities at all, but rather [[archetype|archetypes]] (original models) of which particular objects, properties, and relations are copies. Due to the potential confusion of the term ''idea'', philosophers usually use the terms ''form'', ''Platonic form'', or ''universal''.
 
 
 
===Particulars===
 
In Platonic realism, ''forms'' are related to ''particulars'' (instances of objects and properties) in that a ''particular'' is regarded as a ''copy'' of its form. For example, a particular apple is said to be a ''copy'' of the ''form'' of ''Applehood'' and the apple's redness is a ''copy'' of the ''form'' of ''Redness''. ''Participation'' is another relationship between ''forms'' and ''particulars''. ''Particulars'' are said to ''participate'' in the ''forms'', and the ''forms'' are said to ''[[Substance theory#Inherence relation|inhere]]'' in the ''particulars''.
 
 
 
According to Plato, there are some ''forms'' that are not instantiated at all, but, he contends, that does not imply that the forms ''could not'' be instantiated. ''Forms'' are capable of being instantiated by many different ''particulars'', which would result in the ''form's'' having many copies, or ''inhering'' many ''particulars''.
 
 
 
===Criticism===
 
Two main criticisms with Platonic realism relate to ''inherence'' and difficulty of creating concepts without sense-perception. Despite its criticisms, though, realism has strong defenders. Its popularity through the ages is cyclic.
 
 
 
====Criticism of inherence====
 
Critics claim that the terms ''instantiation'' and ''copy'' are not further defined and that ''participation'' and ''inherence'' are similarly mysterious and unenlightening.
 
They question what it means to say that the ''form'' of ''applehood'' ''inheres'' a particular apple or that the apple is a ''copy'' of the ''form'' of ''applehood''. To the critic, it seems that the ''forms'', not being spatial, cannot have a shape, so it cannot mean be that the apple ''is the same shape as'' the ''form''. Likewise, the critic claims it is unclear what it means to say that an apple ''participates'' in ''applehood''.
 
 
 
Arguments refuting the ''inherence'' criticism, however, claim that a ''form'' of something spatial can lack a concrete (spatial) location and yet have ''in abstracto'' spatial qualities. An apple, then, can have the same shape as its ''form''. Such arguments typically claim that the relationship between a ''particular'' and its ''form'' is very intelligible and easily grasped; that people unproblematically apply Platonic theory in everyday life; and that the ''inherence'' criticism is only created by the artificial demand to explain the normal understanding of ''inherence'' as if it were highly problematical. That is, the supporting argument claims that the criticism is with the mere illusion of a problem and thus could render suspect any philosophical concept.
 
 
 
====Criticism of concepts without sense-perception====
 
A criticism of ''forms'' relates to the origin of concepts without the benefit of sense-perception. For example, to think of redness in general, according to Plato, is to think of the ''form'' of redness.  Critics, however, question how one can have the concept of a ''form'' existing in a special realm of the universe, apart from space and time, since such a concept cannot come from sense-perception. Although one can see an apple and its redness, the critic argues, those things merely ''participate'' in, or are ''copies'' of, the ''forms''. Thus, they claim, to conceive of a particular apple and its redness is not to conceive of ''applehood'' or ''redness-in-general'', so they question the source of the concept.
 
 
 
[[Platonic doctrine of recollection|Plato's doctrine of recollection]], however, addresses such criticism by saying that souls are ''born'' with the concepts of the ''forms'', and just have to be ''reminded'' of those concepts from back before birth, when the souls were in close contact with the ''forms'' in the Platonic heaven. Plato is thus known as one of the very first [[rationalism|rationalists]], believing as he did that humans are born with a fund of ''[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori knowledge]]'', to which they have access through a process of reason or intellection &mdash; a process that critics find to be rather mysterious.
 
 
 
A more modern response to the Platonic realism criticism of ''concepts without sense-perception'' is the claim that the universality of its qualities is an unavoidable given because one only experiences an object by means of general concepts. So, since the critic already grasps the relation between the abstract and the concrete, he is invited to stop thinking that it implies a contradiction. The response reconciles Platonism with empiricism by contending that an abstract (and thus not real) object is ''real'' and knowable by its instantiation. Since the critic has, after all, naturally understood the abstract, the response suggests merely to abandon prejudice and accept it.
 
 
 
== Epistemology ==
 
'''[[Plato]]nic [[epistemology]]''' holds that knowledge is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in the soul, often under the mid-wife-like guidance of an interrogator.  Plato believed that each soul existed before birth with "The Form of the Good" and a perfect knowledge of everything.  Thus, when something is "learned" it is actually just "recalled."
 
 
 
Plato drew a sharp distinction between [[knowledge]] which is certain, and mere [[opinion]] which is not certain.  Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless forms, or [[essence]]s. In the ''Republic'', these concepts were illustrated using the metaphor of the sun, the divided line and the allegory of the cave.
 
 
 
===Metaphor of the sun===
 
Plato, in The Republic (507b-509c), uses the sun as a metaphor for the source of "intellectual illumination", which he held to be ''The Form of the Good''. The metaphor is about the nature of ultimate reality and how we come to know it. It starts with the eye, which Plato says is unusual among the sense organs in that it needs a medium, namely light, in order to operate. The strongest and best source of light is the sun; with it, we can discern objects clearly. Analogous things, he writes, can be said of intelligible objects.  Thus, if we attempt to understand why things are as they are, and what general categories can be used to understand various particulars around us, without reference to any forms (universals), we will fail completely. By contrast, "the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent" is none other than Plato's world of forms—illuminated by the highest of the forms, that of the Good. Since true being resides in the world of the forms, we must direct our intellects there to have knowledge, in Plato's view; otherwise, we are stuck with mere opinion of what may be likened to passing shadows.
 
 
 
===The divided line===
 
[[Plato]], in ''[[Plato's Republic|The Republic]]'' Book 6 (509D–513E), uses the literary device of a '''divided line''' to teach his basic views about four levels of existence (especially "the intelligible" world of the forms, [[universal (metaphysics)|universals]], and "the visible" world we see around us) and the corresponding ways we come to know what exists.
 
[[image:DividedLine.svg|frame|none|The Divided Line]]
 
Plato asks us to imagine a line divided into two parts.  The larger part (segment CE) represents the intelligible world and the smaller (segment AC), the visible world.  Then, he says, imagine each part of the line further divided.  As it turns out, the divisions in the segment for the intelligible world represent higher (DE) and lower (CD) forms, respectively.  Moreover, the divisions in the segment for the visible world represent ordinary visible objects (BC), on the one hand, and their shadows, reflections, and other representations (AB), on the other.
 
 
 
It is important to note that the line segments are said to be ''unequal'': the proportions of their lengths is said to represent "their comparative clearness and obscurity" and their comparative "reality and truth," as well as whether we have knowledge or instead mere opinion of the objects. It can be shown with simple mathematics that any line divided in the way Plato describes that the two middle sections, BC and CD, are necessarily the same length.  Hence, we are said to have relatively clear knowledge of something that is more real and "true" when we attend to ordinary perceptual objects like rocks and trees; by comparison, if we merely attend to their shadows and reflections, we have relatively obscure ''opinion'' of something not quite real.
 
  
Plato uses this familiar relationship, between ordinary objects and their representations or images, in order to illustrate the relationship between the visual world as a whole (visual objects ''and'' their images) and the world of forms as a whole. The former is made up of a series of passing, particular reflections of the latter, which is eternal, more real and "true."  Moreover, the knowledge that we have of the forms—when indeed we do have it—is of a higher order than knowledge of the mere [[particular]]s in the perceptual world.
+
A basic description of collection and division would go as follows: interlocutors attempt to discern the similarities and differences among things in order to get a clear idea about what they in fact are. One understanding, suggested in some passages of the ''Sophist'' is that this is what philosophy is always in the business of doing and is doing even in the early dialogues. In the later dialogues, however, this way of doing philosophy is made explicit while it was only implicit in the earlier dialogues.
  
Consider next the difference between the two parts of the intelligible world, represented by segments CD and DE.  Plato's discussion of this is apt to seem obscure.  The basic idea is that the lower forms (represented by CD) are the real items of which the ordinary particular objects around us are merely reflections or images.  The higher forms, by contrast—of which the so-called [[The Form of the Good|Form of the Good]] is the "highest"—are known only by what has come to be called [[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]] reasoning, so that strictly speaking, knowledge of them does not depend upon experience of particulars or even on ideas (forms) of perceptually-known particulars.
+
* ''Sophist ''
 +
* ''Statesman''
 +
* ''Philebus''
 +
* ''Timaeus''
 +
* ''Critias''
 +
* ''Laws''
  
This can be explained a bit further.  In geometry and arithmetic, we often use particular figures to fix our ideas and make demonstrations clear.  Moreover, in these sciences, we make certain [[postulate]]s and draw conclusions that are only as trustworthy as the postulates. By contrast, the intelligible is "that which the reason itself," rather than image-assisted imagination, lays hold of by the power of dialectic, treating its assumptions not as absolute beginnings but literally as hypotheses, underpinnings, footings, and springboards so to speak, to enable it to rise to that which requires no assumption and is the starting point of all, and after attaining to that again taking hold of the first dependencies from it, so to proceed downward to the conclusion, making no use whatever of any object of sense but only of pure ideas moving on through ideas to ideas and ending with ideas. (511b-c)
+
== Philosophical Themes==
 +
===Ethics and the Good===
 +
As mentioned above, the early dialogues of Plato are usually considered to reflect the teachings of the historical figure [[Socrates]]. The greatest legacy of Socrates is perhaps his ethical striving for the “good life.” For both Socrates and Plato, the ethical life was inextricably connected to the intellectual life such that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Now for the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]], [[ethics]] was not as much about the instruction of [[morality|moral rules]] as it was the cultivation of a “way of life” which involved both the acquisition of virtues as well as the practice of reflection.
  
What all this might mean is essentially to ask, "What are the details of Plato's [[rationalism]]?"  The reference to and idolization of "pure ideas," as well as deduction as it were without assumptions (or with one grand assumption or principle, as The Form of the Good is sometimes portrayed), is something reflected again and again in later rationalists.  The above text finds later echoes in [[René Descartes|Descartes]]' interest in pure, a priori deduction and [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s transcendental arguments.
+
“Philosophy” involved both of these and only through the practice of both does one attain the happy or good life. This close connection between knowledge and goodness meant that “evil” was aligned with ignorance. This means that no one willing does evil, but only what one thinks to be good (i.e., the apparent good).  
  
Plato explicitly names four sorts of cognition associated with each level of being:
+
The Socratic dialogues are devoted, then, to the questioning of what are individual virtues (e.g., friendship, piety) as well as what is virtue itself. Whereas the early Socratic dialogues raise significant ethical questions by refuting those who are often reputed to be “wise” (such as the Sophists), these dialogues often end inclusively. Plato’s middle dialogues, on the other hand, tend to offer hypotheses (or possible answers) to such questions of what is justice (the ''Republic'') or what is love (the ''Symposium'').
<blockquote>
 
[A]nswering to these four sections, assume these four affections occurring in the soul—understanding (''noesis'') for the highest, reasoning (''dianoia'') for the second, belief (''pistis'') for the third, and for the last, picture thinking or conjecture (''eikasia'')—and arrange them in a proportion, considering that they participate in clearness and precision in the same degree as their objects partake of truth and reality. (511d-e)</blockquote>
 
  
Not too much weight should be put on the English (or Greek) meanings of the words here, however. Any significant meaning that these words have, when used as technical terms for Plato, needs to be informed by the metaphysical and epistemological edifice that supports them.
+
Plato’s analyses of these ethical concepts are usually presented by first considering the most popular or ordinary ways of thinking of these concepts and moves to higher more metaphysical ways of considering them. In fact, some interpreters view Plato’s philosophy as mystical such that the ethical or good life is essentially an ascent of the human soul to the Good. Other scholars, however, claim this mystical element is “read into” Plato texts (mainly by his followers, called the [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonists]]). Instead these other commentators insist that Plato be understood as a rationalist. In any case, the one undeniable aspect that Plato shares with both his mentor [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Aristotle]] is the centrality of the good life and the human search for happiness through the practice of [[philosophy]].  
  
The metaphor of the divided line immediately follows another Platonic metaphor, that of the sun: see [[Plato's metaphor of the sun]]. It is immediately followed by the famous [[Plato's allegory of the cave|allegory of the cave]].
+
=== Plato’s Psychology and the Integrated Soul ===
 +
While pursuing the subject of [[justice]] in the ''Republic'' Plato examines the notion of the human soul (book IV). Although in the hindsight of 2,500 years it is easy to view Plato’s separation of the soul into three fundamental parts as being overly simplistic, in doing so we often overlook both the groundbreaking work Plato was doing as well as the complexity of his ideas when studied in the relation to the complete texts in which we find these ideas. In any case, Plato divided the [[soul]] into three parts: the appetitive part, the spirited or emotional part, and the intellectual part. The appetitive part seeks the fulfillment of various bodily pleasures such as [[food]], [[drink]], [[human sexuality|sex]], etc. The spirited or emotional part seeks honor and dignity. Finally, the intellectual part seeks [[truth]] and [[knowledge]].  
  
===Allegory of the cave===
+
Although Plato is often thought of as a dualist who degrades the bodily desires in favor of the higher, intellectual pleasures of [[learning]], it is important to see that his understanding of justice and the happiness of the human soul is directed at attaining a certain harmony or integration of the different parts or powers of ourselves. So he did not hold that we should “starve” the physical desires of our bodily appetites but merely to control them in an intelligent and wise manner.
[[Plato]]'s '''Allegory of the Cave''' is perhaps the best known of his many [[allegory|allegories]], metaphors, and parables.  The allegory is told and interpreted at the beginning of Book&nbsp;7 of ''[[Plato's Republic|Republic]]'' (514A–520A).  
 
  
The allegory is best presented as a story, and then interpreted, as Plato himself does.
+
This means that the intellectual part or power must be in control, or otherwise our bodily desires will wreak havoc in its reckless striving for its own fulfillment (Plato uses the metaphor of a many-headed beast, which devours itself in self-consumption). But if our bodily appetites are to be directed by the intellect in an intelligently ordered way it requires the discipline of the spirited part to tame and to cultivate the bodily desires in an appropriate way. The harmonious or rightly ordered soul, then, is one which practices the virtues of each part. The virtue of the appetites is moderation; the virtue of the spirit is courage; the virtue of the intellect is wisdom. Through these virtues the human soul attains a certain concord or integrity, which Plato understood as the only real happiness worthy of the name.
  
====Plot====
+
We should note, then, that Plato’s division into three parts was not intended to be exhaustive but merely points to the need for a well-ordered integration of all the different powers of our being in order to attain happiness. At the same time, however, we can see the longstanding impact his analysis of soul has had on western [[civilization]], particularly in the [[Christianity|Christian]] tradition where the soul is considered to be a tripartite relation of mind, body, and spirit. Moreover, various modern psychologies continually draw from Plato, such as [[Sigmund Freud]]’s theory of the [[ego, superego, and id]]. Finally, in the ''Phaedo'', Plato offers arguments for the immortality of the soul such that philosophy is to be understood primarily as a preparation for [[death]].
  
Imagine [[prisoner]]s who have been chained since childhood deep inside a [[cave]]. Not only are their limbs immobilized by the chains; their heads are chained as well so that their gaze is fixed on a wall.
+
===Metaphysics and epistemology ===
 +
==== Theory of recollection ====
 +
One of the most famous elements in Plato’s philosophy is his theory of recollection. Although the exact nature of this theory is disputed, it is commonly held that Plato believed that all our ideas are innate such that all learning is a remembering. As said above, for Plato the soul is immortal. At birth, however, as the soul is cast into a body it is thrown into a state of forgetfulness. Learning, then, is a process of reawakening to what we already know in the depths of our souls but is nonetheless concealed to our normal, everyday consciousness.
  
Behind the prisoners is an enormous [[fire]], and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised [[walkway]], along which shapes of various animals, plants, and other things are carried. The shapes cast shadows on the wall, which occupy the prisoners' attention. When one of the shape-carriers speaks, an [[Echo (phenomenon)|echo]] against the wall causes the prisoners to believe that the words come from the shadows.  
+
Plato often viewed the process of life as a moving from darkness or a state of sleep toward the light and full wakefulness. Given this view Plato viewed teachers such as Socrates to be not instructors who instill knowledge but rather as “midwives” whose job is simply to help give birth to those ideas that are already within us. In the Meno, for example, Plato presents Socrates at work with a slave-boy who initially thinks he knows the answer to a geometry problem but is shown that he really is ignorant. Once shown his own ignorance, however, the boy is “perplexed” and so is now ready to learn. Socrates walks him through the problem by asking the boy questions and eventually the boy arrives at the correct answer. Plato uses this example in order to demonstrate that our ideas are already within us, for how else could the boy “recognize” the correct answer. The example, though, hardly offers indisputable proof and so Plato’s theory of recollection has been widely contested by later philosophers, notably Aristotle.
[[Image:Plato's allegory of the cave.jpg|left|thumb|Illustration of the allegory]]
 
The prisoners engage in what appears to us to be a game - naming the shapes as they come by. This, however, is the only reality that they know, even though they are seeing merely shadows of images. They are thus conditioned to judge the quality of one another by their skill in quickly naming the shapes and dislike those who begin to play poorly.
 
  
Suppose a prisoner is released and compelled to stand up and turn around.
+
==== The Doctrine of Ideas ====
 +
[[Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Detail of ''The School of Athens'' by [[Raphael]] (1509), showing Plato (pointing upwards, as if to the Form of the Good) and [[Aristotle]] (holding his hand palm down to [[Earth]], favoring material evidence).]]
 +
Besides being devoted to Socrates, Plato was also deeply influenced by a number of earlier philosophers, known today as the “Pre-Socratics.” This included [[Pythagoras and Pythagoreans]], whose notions of numerical harmony have clear echoes in Plato's notion of the Ideas; [[Anaxagoras]], who was Socrates’ teacher and who held that the mind or reason pervades everything; [[Parmenides]], who argued for the unity of all things and who may have influenced Plato's concept of the soul; and [[Heraclitus]], who held that fire is the fundamental element of the universe and who also said that “all is in flux” or in a state of becoming.
  
His eyes will be blinded by the firelight, and the shapes passing will appear less real than their shadows.
+
In regard to the theory of knowledge it was the attempt to find a “middle way” between Parmenides’ notion that “all is one” and Heraclitus’ notion that everything is in movement and so changing that led Plato to introduce his famous Doctrine of Ideas. Plato recognized with Heraclitus that everything in the material world is constantly changing. And yet, if we can acquire knowledge (and Plato thought we could), something must be stable or permanent such that when we know “it” we know the truth. For this reason Plato held that our “Ideas” were these stable and permanent entities that did not change. To know or “see” these Ideas is to know the truth, the unchangeable. Today, these ideas are often called “universals.
  
Similarly, if he is dragged up out of the cave into the [[sunlight]], his eyes will be so blinded that he will not be able to see anything.
+
Plato considered philosophical knowledge to be closely aligned with mathematics because in math we achieve perfect knowledge (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4 and no other answer is possible). A mathematical example, then, helps us to understand his Doctrine of Ideas. For example, we can come to know the definition of a triangle: an enclosed three-sided figure whose lines are perfectly straight and whose angles add up to exactly 180 degrees. Now any individual or particular triangle that we draw, no matter how fine our technical instruments, will always be slightly flawed even if only by the smallest fraction (e.g., the angles only add up to 179.99999 degrees). These particular or material triangles, therefore, are imperfect. Moreover, since they were drawn in some material or sensible form means they can be destroyed (by burning the paper, chalkboard, etc.) What and where, then, is the perfect triangle? It must be an Idea, one that exists only in the immaterial realm that our minds can participate in. The Idea of a triangle, which is perfect, will never change. It is permanent, ideal, or eternal.
At first, he will be able to see darker shapes such as shadows and, only later, brighter and brighter objects.
 
  
The last object he would be able to see is the [[sun]], which, in time, he would learn to see as that object which provides the seasons and the courses of the year, presides over all things in the visible region, and is in some way the cause of all these things that he has seen.
+
Plato applied this theory, in turn, to all living things. The Idea of a [[human being]] is eternal, permanent and perfect (ideal), although we individual humans are mortal, changing, and imperfect. We will die (at least physically for Plato), though the Idea will not. The same holds for the Idea of [[dog]] or flower. All the individual human beings, dogs, and flowers merely participate in the one, eternal Idea (of Human Being, Dog, Flower).
  
(This part of the allegory, incidentally, closely matches [[Plato's metaphor of the sun]] which occurs near the end of ''The Republic'', Book VI.)
+
Plato’s theory of Ideas has led many scholars to consider his philosophy to be a “metaphysical dualism” (which is sometimes referred to as a “Platonic or metaphysical realism”) in that the Ideas are not merely abstract entities in our minds but ontological realities that exist in some higher, eternal realm. And so, Plato's [[metaphysics]] seems to divide reality into two distinct worlds: the intelligible world of Ideas, and the perceptual, sensible, or physical world of the earthly realm. The sensible world consists of imperfect copies of the intelligible Ideas. Again, these Ideas are unchangeable and perfect, and are only accessible and comprehensible by the use of the intellect or understanding. In Plato the intellect often seems to be equated with the soul so that essentially it does not include sensible perception or the imagination.  
  
Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would want to return to the cave to free "his fellow bondsmen". Another problem lies in the other prisoners not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner's eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the ones identifying shapes on the wall. His eyes would be swamped by the darkness, and would take time to become acclimatized.  Therefore, he would not be able to identify shapes on the wall as well as the other prisoners, making it seem as if his being taken to the surface completely ruined his eyesight. The other prisoners would then not go to the surface, in fear of losing their eyesight.  If someone were to try and force a prisoner to come to the surface, the prisoner would become murderous, and kill whoever tried to force him to come to the surface.
+
In the ''Republic'' books VI and VII, Plato uses a number of metaphors or analogies to explain (or at least suggest) his metaphysical view. They are: the Analogy of the Sun, the Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave. Taken together, these metaphors offer a complex but suggestive metaphysical and epistemological theory whose exact meaning significance, and relation scholars have debated for over two millennia. Let us look at each one in turn.
(''The Republic'' bk. VII, 516b-c; trans. Paul Shorey).
 
  
====Interpretation====  
+
====Analogy of the Sun====
  
In the most simple terms Plato is talking about waking up to the truth of reality about us. He is questioning the very nature of reality and playing the ultimate "what if" game. Not content with mere suggestion, Plato interprets the allegory (beginning at 517b): "This image then [the allegory of the cave] we must apply as a whole to all that has been said" &mdash;i.e., it can be used to interpret the preceding several pages, which concern [[Plato's metaphor of the sun|the metaphor of the sun]] and [[the divided line of Plato|the divided line]]. In particular, Plato likens "the region revealed through sight", i.e., the ordinary objects we see around us
+
In all of Plato’s analogies it is important to remember that he often uses metaphors from the physical world in order to reflect a relation that is similar in the intellectual world. In the analogy of the sun, then, he compares the medium of light that allows us to perceive visible things as similar to the medium of understanding that allows us to perceive intellectual things. In order to see a physical object, like a tree, the organ of our eyes requires light to shine on the object we are seeing. Without the light we would see nothing, but remain in darkness. The source of the light that enables us to see is the sun. A similar relation holds in the intellectual world of our minds. In order to see an intellectual object (an idea) it requires the light of understanding. We may, at first, perceive an idea dimly. That is, we have a sense of what something means, but only vaguely. Often only after working at it or thinking about it, do we come to grasp the concept or idea in a precise and clear manner. That is, we understand it or “see” it for ourselves. But what, then, is the source of this light of understanding? Plato calls it the Good. The Good is comparable to the [[sun]] in being the source of all the Ideas and the source of the light that illuminates them so we can see or understand them.
:to the habitation of the prison, and the light of the fire in it to the power of the sun. And if you assume the ascent and the contemplation of the things above is the soul's ascension to the intelligible region, you will not miss my surmise...[M]y dream as it appears to me is that in the region of the known the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the idea of good, and that when seen it must needs point us to the conclusion that this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right and beautiful, giving birth in the visible world to light, and the author of light and itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason...(517b-c)
 
  
The brilliant sun outside the cave represents [[the Form of the Good]], and this passage among others can easily give the impression that Plato regarded this as a creative, independent god.
+
====Analogy of the Divided Line====
Moreover, after "returning from divine contemplations to the petty miseries of men", one is apt to cut "a sorry figure" if,
 
: while still blinking through the gloom, and before he has become sufficiently accustomed to the environing darkness, he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the images that cast the shadows and to wrangle in debate about the notions of these things in the minds of those who have never seen justice itself? (517d-e)
 
Plato could, perhaps, be thinking (or subtly reminding the reader) of the [[trial of Socrates]] here.
 
  
It might appear strange that, while acknowledging the political ineptness of one "returning from divine contemplations", Plato has all the while been describing the ideal state, ruled by philosopher-kings, a qualification of which is that they are in regular intercourse with the Form of the Good.
+
In the Analogy of the Divided Line, Plato again divides the physical and intellectual worlds. In the center of the line there is a dividing mark which separates the two realms. Two other lines are drawn which further separate each of those two realms. There are, then, four distinct regions. On one side of the line Plato marks the human power that functions at a certain level of perception; on the other side of the line he marks the kind of object that is being perceived. So at the very bottom region there is the human power of imagination which perceives objects that are likened to shadows. This region is considered to be a kind of fantasy made possible by our power of dreaming. The objects we perceive are not “real” but fabricated or devised by our own fancy. In the next region we have the power of our senses through which we perceive actual physical objects (physical trees, flowers, humans, etc). As we saw earlier these objects in being physical are susceptible to change. For this reason, the “knowledge” we achieve of these sensible things is merely opinion.  
  
Another more simplistic interpretation of the Allegory is the process and consequence of [[Enlightenment (concept) |enlightenment]]. First one has to awaken from the dream we call life (breaking the bonds); then we become aware of the webs that influence and move us (shadows on the wall); and finally we see the truth for what it truly is (the sun and world outside the cave). Our instinct and natural desire is to free others and awaken them to the truth, but doing so is futile for they cannot see past the illusions and will only attack the truth bearer.  
+
In the third region we have now passed from the sensible world to the intellectual world. The power we use here is the faculty of thought in which we now question and think about those things in the lower realm that we had merely perceived through our senses. In asking questions we inquire into what a [[flower]] or a [[tree]] or a [[human being]] really is. What is their nature or essence? In doing this, we begin to form hypotheses or possible answers to what these things really are. But only by passing into the fourth level do we arrive at knowledge in the full sense of the word. In this region we perceive through the power of understanding and now see the Idea itself. The exact nature of this fourth region is often debated about, but it would seem that for Plato in understanding the mind grasps the Idea through a kind of immediate intuition, a flash of illuminating recognition where we “see the truth.
  
The Allegory becomes a metaphor for the life of Socrates. Awakened to the truth and killed for trying to bring that truth to the chained.
+
We grasp the Idea of flower, tree, or human being. This Analogy of the Divided Line, then, suggests an ascending order in the degrees of knowing both in terms of the human faculty that is being used in knowing and the object which is being known or perceived. At the conclusion of the analogy Plato even suggests a highest order of knowing which relates to the analogy of the sun. This highest level of knowing is the direct perception of the source of light itself, that is, the Good.
  
Yet another interpretation is that of the [[Idealist]]s. As in the philosophy of [[George Berkeley]], it is understood that we do not directly and immediately know [[real]] external objects. We only directly know the effect that reality has on our [[mind]]s. In other words, we immediately know only shadowy inner [[mental]] images of real external objects. The real external objects themselves cannot be immediately and directly known. In the Appendix to his main work, [[Schopenhauer]] expressed it as follows:
+
====Allegory of the Cave====
{{Quotation|This world that appears to the senses has no true being, but only a ceaseless becoming; it is, and it also is not; and its comprehension is not so much a knowledge as an illusion. This is what he expresses in a myth at the beginning of the seventh book of the ''Republic'', the most important passage in all his works &hellip; . He says that men, firmly chained in a dark cave, see neither the genuine original light nor actual things, but only the inadequate light of the fire in the cave, and the shadows of actual things passing by the fire behind their backs. Yet they imagine that the shadows are the reality, and that determining the succession of these shadows is true wisdom.|''[[The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. I, Appendix}}
+
Whereas the Analogy of the Divided Line is often criticized as being too static in its divisions of knowledge, the Analogy of the Cave captures in a more dynamic manner the idea of knowing as a passing through various stages. As with the Divided Line there are four distinct stages, which ultimately culminates in the mind’s beholding the Good, but in this analogy there is a more narrative structure, which suggests the journey of the soul in its ascent to the Good.
  
====Symbolism====
+
The first stage depicts prisoners inside a [[cave]] whose bodies and necks are chained so that they so are forced to stare at the wall before them. Behind their backs is a great, blazing fire which casts light and before the fire are artifacts, which have been made in the form of real things like trees, animals, and human beings. Shadows of the artifacts appear like puppets on the wall and so from the prisoners’ perspectives these shadows appear to be real things, for they are the only reality they know.
  
Each aspect of the allegory has its own symbolism. Plato had a great interest in politics and sociology, which are reflected in the allegory. The symbolism of the aspects are explored below:
+
Stage two commences when one of the prisoners is suddenly freed from his chains and so is able to turn his head around. At first the strength of the light of the fire blurs his vision. Over time his eyes adjust, and so he begins to see the artifacts and the fire behind them. This, then, appears to be reality.
  
First, Plato establishes the sun as the source of true knowledge. He then says that the prisoners who sit in the cave represent much of humanity. We sit not knowing the truth; however, as Plato relates, philosophers (freed men) will begin to attempt to loosen our chains.
+
Stage three begins when this prisoner is dragged along the path that winds up and out of the cave. Eventually the prisoner arrives above ground and out into the world above. He now beholds the daylight and his eyes are even more bedazzled. Again, it takes time to adjust but when he does he sees the reflections of things (such as trees, animals, and human beings) as they appear in the water of ponds.
  
Plato then explains that the chains are representatives of our society and our outside influences. They serve to stop us from questioning and help divert our attention onto different aspects of our lives. In order to maintain power the authoritarians cannot have the prisoners (us) turning around, so they have us concern ourselves with trivial matters instead.
+
After that he enters stage four where he can look directly at the things themselves, the real trees, animals, and people. Finally, at the highest degree he looks up into the light itself and sees the [[sun]]. In this way, the former prisoner is finally free from the illusions below and is able to see things as they really are. In fact, he pities the prisoners below who are still in the dark and so only see images and imitations of real things but not the things themselves.
  
In the analogy we can see that the guards are also representing authority figures that want us to see only the reflections of reality. We can consider them as the government for example. They are people in power who want to stay there; they want the prisoners to remain exactly how they are. They keep us fixed in the state of [[eikasia]].
+
Having arrived at this enlightened state (of philosophy) the man wishes he could remain above ground in contemplation of the light of truth. Having pity on those below who are still imprisoned, however, he descends back down into the cave. It is so dark, though, his eyes again need time to adjust and everything looks disoriented and unclear. Although the returned philosopher tries to help the others see, he is not welcomed but ridiculed. In fact, when he persists in revealing to them their illusions, he ultimately is killed. For the people prefer to live in the darkness than to make the difficult ascent into the light above ground.
  
The cave in which the prisoners sit is our bodies. Our bodies stop us from seeing true reality as they concentrate us on matter. True knowledge which would shine on everything would come from the sun in this analogy, but our caves stop it from reaching us. Plato believes that the soul is trapped in the body, and if we can travel with our soul to the exit of the cave, we can see true reality.
+
Throughout these stages, then, we see how Plato conceives the process of [[education]] and learning as an intellectual ascent from darkness into light. This ascent involves transitioning into higher degrees of knowledge that ultimately is aimed at beholding the Good itself. Moreover, we can see how the stages in the Allegory of the Cave correlate with the divisions in the Divided Line. The shadows on the cave wall are analogous to the shadows of the deluded images created by our imagination. The artifacts are like the physical objects that are illuminated by the fire of the physical sun. Making the ascent out of the cave and into the sunlight above is like moving from the sensible world into the intellectual world of the mind.
  
Plato goes on to say that if a prisoner were to break out of his chains and turn around, he would be dazzled by the fire initially, but he would be able to see what was going on and exit the cave. He says that this is a difficult and scary process. He would be defying the guards, his parents, his social influences and his normal way of life. Plato also states that normal prisoners simply do not want to break free. It is too difficult and too scary. They are satisfied with their [[empirical]] comfort and do not want to leave.  
+
Initially in asking questions we begin to think for ourselves and form pseudo-ideas of possible answers in the form of scientific hypotheses. Eventually, though, if persistent, we come to grasp the “real things,” so like the freed prisoner we now see in the light of day the Ideas themselves. Finally in the decent of the philosopher back into the cave we see Plato’s obvious allusion to [[Socrates]] as the enlightened one who in trying to open the eyes of his fellow citizens is greeted with death.
  
Upon exiting the cave, the philosopher-prisoner sees the world’s true reality thanks to the sun. His words however cannot describe what he sees and when he returns to the prisoners he has the difficult challenge of explaining it to them. Very few listen to him. How can the philosopher explain what he has seen when the prisoners’ language only describes what is seen in the cave?
+
===Political philosophy===
  
Plato says that we cannot describe the divine as our language is also based entirely on experience. Every word stems from an aspect of human experience. However, despite being far off from breaking out of the cave, we can attempt to loosen the chains by questioning what we are told.
+
Plato's philosophical views had many societal implications, especially on the idea of an ideal state or government. There is some discrepancy between his early and later views. Some of the most famous doctrines are contained in the ''Republic'' during his middle period. However, because Plato wrote dialogues, it is assumed that Socrates is often speaking for Plato. This assumption may not be true in all cases.
  
====Current significance====
+
Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that the ideal society would have a tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the individual soul.
  
Much like [[Pandora's Box]] has come to represent the unintended impact of modern technology, Plato's Cave has resonance for modern times as a [[metaphor]] for the way [[mass media]] dominate public discourse and understanding, standing between the individual and the event and providing the "meaning".
+
* ''Productive'' (Workers) &mdash; the laborers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
 
 
===An example: love and wisdom===
 
A good example of how Plato viewed the acquiring of knowledge is contained in his teachings of the ''Ladder of Love''.  In ''Symposium'' (210a-211b) a "lover" is defined as someone who loves and to [[love]] is defined as a desire for something that one does not have.  According to this ladder model of love, a lover progresses from [[rung]] to rung from the basest love to the pure form of love as follows:
 
 
 
#''A beautiful body'' - The lover begins here at the most obvious form of love.
 
#''All beautiful bodies'' - If the lover examines his love and does some investigating, he/she will find that the [[beauty]] contained in this beautiful body is not original, that it is shared by every beautiful body.
 
#''Beautiful [[soul]]s'' - After most likely attempting to have every beautiful body, the lover should realize that if a single love does not satisfy, there is not reason to think that many ones will satisfy.  Thus, the "lover of every body" must, in the words of Plato, "bring his passion for the one into due proportion by deeming it of little or of no importance."  Instead, the passion is transferred to a more appropriate object: the soul.
 
#''The beauty of [[law]]s and [[institution]]s'' - The next [[logic]]al step is for the lover to love all beautiful souls and then to transfer that love to that which is responsible for their existence: a moderate, harmonious and just social order.
 
#''The beauty of [[knowledge]]'' - Once proceeding down this path, the lover will naturally long for that which produces and makes intelligible good social institutions: knowledge.
 
#''Beauty itself'' - This is the platonic "form" of beauty itself.  It is not a particular thing that is beautiful, but is instead the essence of beauty.  Plato describes this level of love as a "wondrous vision," an "everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor ages, which neither flowers nor fades."  It is eternal and isn't "anything that is of the flesh" nor "words" nor "knowledge" but is consists "of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness, while every lovely thing partakes of it."
 
 
 
Knowledge concerning other things is similarly gained by progressing from a base reality (or shadow) of the thing sought (red, tall, thin, keen, etc.) to the eventual form of the thing sought, or the thing sought itself.  Such steps follow the same pattern as Plato's metaphor of the sun, his allegory of the cave and his divided line; progress brings one closer and closer to reality as each step explains the relative reality of the past.
 
 
 
== The State ==
 
 
 
Plato's philosophical views had many societal implications, especially on the idea of an ideal [[state]] or government. There is some discrepancy between his early and later views. Some of the most famous doctrines are contained in the ''Republic'' during his middle period.  However, because Plato wrote dialogues, it is assumed that Socrates is often speaking for Plato.  This assumption may not be true in all cases.
 
 
 
Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that societies have a tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the individual soul.
 
 
 
* ''Productive'' (Workers) &mdash; the labourers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
 
 
* ''Protective'' (Warriors or Auxiliaries) &mdash; those who are adventurous, strong and brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
 
* ''Protective'' (Warriors or Auxiliaries) &mdash; those who are adventurous, strong and brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
 
* ''Governing'' (Rulers or Guardians) &mdash; those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.  
 
* ''Governing'' (Rulers or Guardians) &mdash; those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.  
  
According to this model, the principles of [[Athens|Athenian]] [[democracy]] (as it existed in his day) are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato says reason and wisdom should govern. This does not equate to [[tyranny]], [[despotism]], or [[oligarchy]], however. As Plato puts it:
+
According to this model, the principles of [[Athens|Athenian]] [[democracy]] (as it existed in his day) are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato held that reason and wisdom should govern. This does not equate to [[tyranny]], [[despotism]], or [[oligarchy]], however. As Plato puts it:
  
: "Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race." (''Republic'' 473c-d)
+
<blockquote>Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race. (''Republic'' 473c-d)</blockquote>
  
Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" (''Republic'' 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. Sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the ''Republic'' then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.
+
Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" (''Republic'' 475c) and supports the idea with the [[analogy]] of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. [[Sailing]] and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the ''Republic'' then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.
  
However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the ''Republic'' is qualified by Socrates as the ideal ''luxurious'' city, examined to determine how it is that injustice and justice grow in a city (''Republic'' 372e). According to Socrates, the "true" and "healthy" city is instead the one first outlined in book II of the ''Republic'', 369c-372d, containing farmers, craftsmen, merchants, and wage-earners, but lacking the guardian class of philosopher-kings as well as delicacies such as "perfumed oils, incense, prostitutes, and pastries", in addition to paintings, gold, ivory, couches, a multitude of occupations such as poets and hunters, and war.
+
However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the ''Republic'' is qualified by Socrates as the ideal ''luxurious'' city, examined to determine how it is that injustice and justice grow in a city (''Republic'' 372e). In addition, the ideal city is used as an image to illuminate the state of one's soul, and how the desires, emotions, and reason are combined in the human soul. Socrates is attempting to make an image of a rightly ordered human, and then later goes on to describe the different kinds of humans that can be observed, from tyrants to lovers of money in various kinds of cities. The ideal [[city]] is not promoted, but only used to magnify the different kinds of individual humans and the state of their soul.
  
In addition, the ideal city is used as an image to illuminate the state of one's soul, or the [[will]], [[reason]], and [[desire]]s combined in the human body.  Socrates is attempting to make an image of a rightly ordered human, and then later goes on to describe the different kinds of humans that can be observed, from tyrants to lovers of money in various kinds of cities.  The ideal city is not promoted, but only used to magnify the different kinds of individual humans and the state of their soul.    However, the [[philosopher king]] image was used by many after Plato to justify their personal political beliefs.  The philosophic soul according to Socrates has reason, will, and desires united in virtuous harmony.  A philosopher has the [[moderate]] love for [[wisdom]] and the [[courage]] to act according to wisdom.  Wisdom is [[knowledge]] about the [[Good]] or the right relations between all that [[exist]]s.
+
According to Socrates, then, a [[nation-state|state]] that is made up of different kinds of souls will eventually decline from an [[aristocracy]] to a [[timocracy]] to an [[oligarchy]] to a [[democracy]] and finally to [[tyranny]]. It is often thought that Plato is trying to warn us of the various kinds of immoderate souls that can rule over a state, and what kind of wise souls are best to advise and give counsel to the rulers that are often lovers of power, money, fame, and popularity. In contrast, though, the philosopher king image has been used by many political thinkers after Plato to justify an aristocratic system of rule.
 
 
Wherein it concerns states and rulers, Plato has made interesting arguments. For instance he asks which is better - a bad democracy or a country reigned by a tyrant. He argues that it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant (since then there is only one person committing bad deeds) than be a bad democracy (since here all the people are now responsible for such actions.)
 
 
 
According to Socrates a state, which is made up of different kinds of souls, will overall decline from an [[aristocracy]] to a [[timocracy]], then to an [[oligarchy]], then to a [[democracy]], and finally to [[tyranny]]. Perhaps Plato is trying to warn us of the various kinds of immoderate souls that can rule over a state, and what kind of wise souls are best to advise and give counsel to the rulers that are often lovers of [[power]], money, fame, and popularity.
 
 
 
== Platonic Scholarship ==
 
 
 
[[Image:Plato.png|thumb|"The safest general characterisation of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." ([[Alfred North Whitehead]], ''[[Process and Reality]]'', 1929).]]
 
 
 
Plato's thought is often compared with that of his most famous student, [[Aristotle]], whose reputation during the Western [[Middle Ages]] so completely eclipsed that of Plato that the [[Scholasticism|Scholastic]] philosophers referred to Aristotle as "the Philosopher". However, in the [[Byzantine Empire]], the study of Plato continued.
 
 
 
The Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato, nor the knowledge of [[Greek language|Greek]] needed to read them. Plato's original writings were essentially lost to Western civilization until they were brought from [[Constantinople]] in the century before its fall, by [[George Gemistos Plethon]]. Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into [[Latin]] from the translations into [[Arabic language|Arabic]] by [[Iran|Persian]] and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive [[commentary|commentaries]] and [[interpretation]]s on Plato's and [[Aristotle]]'s works (see [[Al-Farabi]], [[Avicenna]], [[Averroes]]).
 
 
 
Only in the [[Renaissance]], with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the West. Many of the greatest early modern scientists and artists who broke with [[Scholasticism]] and fostered the flowering of the Renaissance, with the support of the Plato-inspired [[Lorenzo de Medici]], saw Plato's philosophy as the basis for progress in the arts and sciences. By the [[19th century]], Plato's reputation was restored, and at least on par with Aristotle's.
 
 
 
Notable Western philosophers have continued to draw upon Plato's work since that time. Plato's influence has been especially strong in mathematics and the sciences. It inspired the greatest advances in logic since Aristotle, due to [[Gottlob Frege]] and his followers [[Kurt Gödel]], [[Alonzo Church]], and [[Alfred Tarski]], the last of whom summarised his approach by reversing Aristotle's famous declaration of sedition from the ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' (1096a15: ''Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas''): ''Inimicus Plato sed magis amica veritas'' ("Plato is a friend, but truth is yet a greater friend"). [[Albert Einstein]] drew on Plato's understanding of an immutable reality that underlies the flux of appearances for his objections to the probabilistic picture of the physical universe propounded by [[Niels Bohr]] in his interpretation of [[quantum mechanics]]. Conversely, thinkers that diverged from [[ontology|ontological]] models and [[moral]] ideals in their own philosophy, have tended to disparage Platonism from more or less informed perspectives. Thus [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] attacked Plato's moral and political theories, [[Martin Heidegger]] argued against Plato's alleged obfuscation of ''[[Being]]'', and [[Karl Popper]] argued in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'' (1945) that Plato's alleged proposal for a government system in the ''Republic'' was prototypically [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]]. [[Leo Strauss]] is considered by some as the prime thinker involved in the recovery of Platonic thought in its more political, and less metaphysical, form. Deeply influenced by Nietzsche and Heidegger, Strauss nonetheless rejects their condemnation of Plato and looks to the dialogues for a solution to what all three thinkers acknowledge as 'the crisis of the West.'
 
  
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==
Plato's writings (most of them [[dialogue]]s) have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts.
+
===Primary Sources===
 +
*Plato. 1961. ''Collected Dialogues''. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691097186
  
Those works ascribed to Plato that have a separate Wikipedia article can be found in [[:Category:Dialogues of Plato]]
+
===Secondary Sources===
 +
*Bakalis, Nikolaos. 2005. ''Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments''. Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1412048435
 +
* Fine, Gail. 2000. ''Plato 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology''. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198752067
 +
* Guthrie, W. K. C. 1986. ''A History of Greek Philosophy (Plato - The Man & His Dialogues - Earlier Period)''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521311012
 +
* Guthrie, W. K. C. 1986. ''A History of Greek Philosophy (Later Plato & the Academy)''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521311020
 +
*Havelock, Eric. 2005. ''Preface to Plato (History of the Greek Mind)''. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 0674699068
 +
*Irwin, Terence. 1995. ''Plato's Ethics''. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195086457
 +
* Kraut, Richard (ed.). 1993. ''The Cambridge Companion to Plato''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521436109
 +
* Sallis, John. 1996. ''Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues''. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253210712
 +
* Taylor, A. E. 2001. ''Plato: The Man and His Work''. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. ISBN 0486416054
 +
* Vlastos, Gregory. 1981. ''Platonic Studies''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691100217
  
=== Tetralogy ===
+
== External links ==
One tradition regarding the arrangement of Plato's texts is according to [[tetralogy|tetralogies]]. This scheme is ascribed by [[Diogenes Laertius]] to an ancient scholar and court astrologer to [[Tiberius]] named [[Thrasyllus]].
+
All links retrieved May 7, 2015.
 
 
In the list below, works by Plato are marked (1) if there is no consensus among scholars as to whether Plato is the author, and (2) if scholars generally agree that Plato is ''not'' the author of the work. Unmarked works are assumed to have been written by Plato.
 
 
 
==== Tetralogies ====
 
* I. ''[[Euthyphro]]'', ''[[Apology (Plato)|(The) Apology (of Socrates)]]'', ''[[Crito]]'', ''[[Phaedo]]''
 
* II. ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'', ''[[Theaetetus (dialogue)|Theaetetus]]'', ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'', ''[[Statesman (dialogue)|Statesman]]''
 
* III. ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'', ''[[Philebus]]'', ''[[Symposium (Plato dialogue)|(The) Symposium]]'', ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]''
 
* IV. ''[[First Alcibiades]]'' (1), ''[[Second Alcibiades]]'' (2), ''[[Hipparchus (dialogue)|Hipparchus]]'' (2), ''[[Rival Lovers|(The) (Rival) Lovers]]'' (2)
 
* V. ''[[Theages]]'' (2), ''[[Charmides (dialogue)|Charmides]]'', ''[[Laches (dialogue)|Laches]]'', ''[[Lysis (dialogue)|Lysis]]''
 
* VI. ''[[Euthydemus (dialogue)|Euthydemus]]'', ''[[Protagoras (dialogue)|Protagoras]]'', ''[[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]]'', ''[[Meno]]''
 
* VII. ''[[Hippias major|(Greater) Hippias (major)]]'' (1), ''[[Hippias minor|(Lesser) Hippias (minor)]]'', ''[[Ion (dialogue)|Ion]]'', ''[[Menexenus]]''
 
* VIII. ''[[Clitophon]]'' (1), ''[[Republic (dialogue)|(The) Republic]]'', ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'', ''[[Critias (dialogue)|Critias]]''
 
* IX. ''[[Minos (dialogue)|Minos]]'' (2), ''[[Laws (dialogue)|(The) Laws]]'', ''[[Epinomis]]'' (2), ''[[Seventh Letter]]'' (1).
 
 
 
==== Works Not in Thrasyllus' Tetralogies ====
 
The remaining works were transmitted under Plato's name, most of them already considered spurious in antiquity, and so were not included by Thrasyllus in his tetralogical arrangement.  These works are labelled as ''Notheuomenoi'' ("spurious") or ''Apocrypha''.
 
  
* ''[[Axiochus]]'' (2), ''[[Definitions (Plato)|Definitions]]'' (2), ''[[Demodocus (dialogue)|Demodocus]]'' (2), ''[[Epigrams (Plato)|Epigrams]]'', ''[[Eryxias]]'' (2), ''[[Halcyon (dialogue)|Halcyon]]'' (2), ''[[On Justice]]'' (2), ''[[On Virtue]]'' (2), ''[[Sisyphus (dialogue)|Sisyphus]]'' (2).
 
 
=== Stephanus pagination ===
 
The usual system for making unique references to sections of the text by Plato derives from a [[16th century]] edition of Plato's works by [[Henri Estienne|Henricus Stephanus]]. An overview of Plato's writings according to this system can be found in the [[Stephanus pagination]] article.
 
 
=== Chronology ===
 
The exact order in which Plato's dialogues were written is not known, nor is the extent to which some might have been later revised and rewritten. However, according to modern [[linguistics|linguistic theory]] there is enough information internal to the dialogues to form a rough chronology. The dialogues are normally grouped into three fairly distinct periods, with a few of them considered transitional works, and some just difficult to place.  [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]], whose translation of Plato into German still stands uncontested in Germany, is very likely the first to have divided Plato's dialogues into three distinct periods.  However, his ordering is quite different from the modern one, and rather than being based upon philology, he claims to have traced Plato's philosophical development.  Schleiermacher divides the dialogues thus:
 
 
# Foundation:  ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'', ''[[Lysis]]'', ''[[Protagoras (dialogue)|Protagoras]]'', ''[[Laches (dialogue)|Laches]]'', ''[[Charmides (dialogue)|Charmides]]'', ''[[Euthyphro]]'', ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'';
 
# Transition:  ''[[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]]'', ''[[Theaetetus (dialogue)|Theaetetus]]'', ''[[Meno (Plato)|Meno]]'', ''[[Euthydemus (dialogue)|Euthydemus]]'', ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'', ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'', ''[[Statesman (dialogue)|Statesman]]'', ''[[Symposium]]'', ''[[Phaedo]]'', ''[[Philebus]]''
 
# Culmination:  ''[[The Republic (dialogue)|The Republic]]'',  ''(Critias, Timaeus, The Laws)''
 
 
The final three dialogues above, in parentheses, were not translated by Schleiermacher, though ten other dialogues (including ''[[Ion]]'', etc.) were translated and deemed spurious. Finally, Schleiermacher maintained that the ''[[Apology (Plato)|Apology]]'' and probably the ''[[Crito]]'' were Plato's memory of Socrates' actual words.
 
 
[[Lewis Campbell]] was the first to make exhaustive use of [[stylometry]] to prove objectively that the ''Critias'', ''Timaeus'', ''Laws'', ''Philebus'', ''Sophist'', and ''Statesman'' were all clustered together as a group, while the ''Parmenides'', ''Phaedrus'', ''Republic'', and ''Theaetetus'' belong to a separate group, which must be earlier (given [[Aristotle]]'s statement in his ''Politics''<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058&layout=&loc=2.1264b  1264b24-27]</ref> that the ''Laws'' was written after the ''Republic''; cf. [[Diogenes Laertius]] ''Lives'' 3.37).
 
 
Many of the positions in the ordering are still highly disputed.  The generally agreed upon modern ordering is as follows.
 
 
==== Early Dialogues ====
 
Socrates figures in all of these, and they are considered the most faithful representations of the historical Socrates; hence they are also called the [[Socratic dialogues]]. Most of them consist of Socrates discussing a subject, often an ethical one (friendship, piety) with a friend or with someone presumed to be an expert on it. Through a series of questions he will show that apparently they don't understand it at all. It is left to the reader to figure out if "he" really understands "it".  This makes these dialogues "indirect" teachings.  This period also includes several pieces surrounding the trial and execution of Socrates.
 
 
* ''[[Apology (Plato)|Apology]]''
 
* ''[[Crito]]''
 
* ''[[Charmides (dialogue)|Charmides]]''
 
* ''[[Laches (dialogue)|Laches]]''
 
* ''[[Lysis (dialogue)|Lysis]]''
 
* ''[[Euthyphro]]''
 
* ''[[Menexenus]]''
 
* ''[[Lesser Hippias]]''
 
* ''[[Ion (dialogue)|Ion]]''
 
 
The following are variously considered transitional or middle period dialogues:
 
 
* ''[[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]]''
 
* ''[[Protagoras (dialogue)|Protagoras]]''
 
* ''[[Meno]]''
 
 
==== Middle Dialogues ====
 
 
Late in the early dialogues Plato's Socrates actually begins supplying answers to some of the questions he asks, or putting forth positive doctrines. This is generally seen as the first appearance of Plato's own views. The first of these, that goodness is wisdom and that no one does evil willingly, was perhaps Socrates' own view. What becomes most prominent in the middle dialogues is the idea that knowledge comes of grasping unchanging forms or essences, paired with the attempts to investigate such essences. The immortality of the soul, and specific doctrines about justice, truth, and beauty, begin appearing here. The [[Symposium (Plato dialogue)|Symposium]] and the [[Republic (dialogue)|Republic]] are considered the centrepieces of Plato's middle period.
 
 
* ''[[Euthydemus (dialogue)|Euthydemus]]''
 
* ''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]''
 
* ''[[Phaedo]]''
 
* ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]''
 
* ''[[Symposium (Plato dialogue)|Symposium]]''
 
* ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''
 
* ''[[Theaetetus (dialogue)|Theaetetus]]''
 
* ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]''
 
 
==== Late Dialogues ====
 
 
The ''[[Parmenides (dialogue)|Parmenides]]'' presents a series of criticisms of the theory of Forms which are widely taken to indicate Plato's abandonment of the doctrine. Some recent publications (e.g., Meinwald (1991)) have challenged this characterisation. In most of the remaining dialogues the theory is either absent or at least appears under a different guise in discussions about kinds or classes of things (the ''[[Timaeus]]'' may be an important, and hence controversially placed, exception). Socrates is either absent or a minor figure in the discussion. An apparently new method for doing dialectic known as "collection and division" is also featured, most notably in the ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'' and ''[[Statesman]]'', explicitly for the first time in the ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'', and possibly in the ''[[Philebus]]''. A basic description of collection and division would go as follows: interlocutors attempt to discern the similarities and differences among things in order to get clear idea about what they in fact are. One understanding, suggested in some passages of the ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'', is that this is what philosophy is always in the business of doing, and is doing even in the early dialogues.
 
 
The late dialogues are also an important place to look for Plato's mature thought on most of the issues dealt with in the earlier dialogues. There is much work still to be done by scholars on the working out of what these views are. The later works are agreed to be difficult and challenging pieces of philosophy. On the whole they are more sober and logical than earlier works, but may hold out the promise of steps towards a solution to problems which were systematically laid out in prior works.
 
 
<!-- What is this, and why is it here?  (I don't know what all this is but one should not inadvertently mess up the whole thing!)
 
Geodde Summary:
 
Plato was born in 429 B.C.E. in Greece. He died there in 348 B.C.E. He was the most famous student of Socrates. He was an idealistic philosopher who liked to focus mainly on the “Goodness.” The “Goodness” meant that someone was honest, moral and would do the right thing. Other Greeks during this time were more focused on things such as gaining power and money. Plato was more focused on the real world (government and people). Plato’s views on the government included his idea that the most important thing for a government to enforce was justice. Justice meant doing what was right and fair. Plato’s ideas of what a government should be like influenced Greek governments and Western government. Plato believed that a philosopher-king rule the best government. He believed that because a philosopher king would be educated and thoughtful. For his idea of people, Plato believed that they should be good and do good. Plato’s idea for proof of a just society would be everyone being free to practise his or her own talents.
 
—>
 
* ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]''
 
* ''[[Statesman (dialogue)|Statesman]]''
 
* ''[[Philebus]]''
 
* ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''
 
* ''[[Critias (dialogue)|Critias]]''
 
* ''[[Laws (dialogue)|Laws]]''
 
 
=== Loeb Classical Library ===
 
[[James Loeb]] provided a very popular edition of Plato's works, still in print in the [[21st century]]: see [[Loeb Classical Library#Plato]] for how Plato's works were named in Loeb's publications.
 
 
== See also ==
 
{{wikisource|el:Πλάτων|Πλάτων}}
 
{{wikiquote}}
 
 
* [[Wikisource:el:Πλάτων|Greek texts]]
 
* [[List of publications in philosophy#Western philosophy|Important publications in Western philosophy]]
 
* [[Mitchell Miller]]
 
* [[Eric A. Havelock]]
 
* [[Alexander Nehamas]]
 
* [[Platonic love]]
 
* [[The Seventh Letter of Plato]]
 
 
== Footnotes ==
 
<references/>
 
 
== References ==
 
*Bakalis, Nikolaos (2005). ''Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments'', Trafford Publishing ISBN 1-4120-4843-5
 
* {{cite book | author=Cooper, John M. & Hutchinson, D. S. (Eds.) | title=Plato: Complete Works | publisher=Hackett Publishing Co., Inc | year=1997 | id=ISBN 0-87220-349-2}}
 
* {{cite book | author=Durant, Will | title=The Story of Philosophy | publisher=Simon & Schuster | year=1926 | id=ISBN 0-671-69500-2}}
 
* Fine, Gail (2000). ''Plato 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology'' Oxford University Press, USA, ISBN 0-19-875206-7
 
* [[W. K. C. Guthrie|Guthrie, W. K. C.]] (1986). ''A History of Greek Philosophy (Plato - The Man & His Dialogues - Earlier Period)'', Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-31101-2
 
* [[W. K. C. Guthrie|Guthrie, W. K. C.]] (1986). ''A History of Greek Philosophy (Later Plato & the Academy)''  Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-31102-0
 
*Havelock, Eric (2005). ''Preface to Plato (History of the Greek Mind)'', Belknap Press, ISBN 0-674-69906-8
 
* {{cite book | author=Hamilton, Edith & Cairns, Huntington (Eds.) | title=The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters | publisher=Princeton Univ. Press | year=1961 | id=ISBN 0-691-09718-6}}
 
*Irwin, Terence (1995). ''Plato's Ethics'', Oxford University Press, USA, ISBN 0-19-508645-7
 
* {{ cite book | author=Lundberg, Phillip |title=Tallyho - The Hunt for Virtue:  Beauty, Truth and Goodness - Nine Dialogues by Plato |publisher=AuthorHouse | year=2005 | id=ISBN 1-4184-4976-8 |}}
 
* {{cite book | author=Jackson, Roy | title=Plato: A Beginner's Guide | location=London | publisher=Hoder & Stroughton | year=2001 | id=ISBN 0-340-80385-1}}
 
* {{cite book | author=Kraut, Richard (Ed.) | title=The Cambridge Companion to Plato | publisher=Cambridge University Press | year=1993 | id=ISBN 0-521-43610-9}}
 
* {{cite book | author=Melchert, Norman | title=The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy | publisher=McGraw Hill | year=2002 | id=ISBN 0-19-517510-7}}
 
* {{cite book | author=Meinwald, Constance Chu | title=Plato's Parmenides | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=1991 | id=ISBN 0-19-506445-3 }}
 
* {{cite book | author=[[John Sallis|Sallis, John]] | title=Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues | publisher=Indiana University Press | year=1996 | id=ISBN 0253210712 }}
 
* {{cite book | author=[[John Sallis|Sallis, John]] | title=Chorology: On Beginning in Plato's "Timaeus" | publisher=Indiana University Press | year=1999 | id=ISBN 0253213088 }}
 
* Taylor, A. E. (2001). ''Plato: The Man and His Work'', Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-41605-4
 
* [[Gregory Vlastos|Vlastos, Gregory]] (1981). ''Platonic Studies'', Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-10021-7
 
* [[Oxford University Press]] publishes scholarly editions of Plato's Greek texts in the ''[[Oxford Classical Texts]]'' series, and some translations in the ''Clarendon Plato Series''.
 
* [[Harvard University Press]] publishes the hardbound series ''[[Loeb Classical Library#Plato|Loeb Classical Library]]'', containing Plato's works in [[Greek language|Greek]], with English translations on facing pages.
 
* {{cite book | author=Smith, William. | title=Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology | publisher=University of Michigan/Online version | year=1867 &mdash; original }}
 
 
== External links ==
 
 
*Project Gutenberg
 
*Project Gutenberg
 
* {{gutenberg author | id=Plato | name=Plato}}
 
* {{gutenberg author | id=Plato | name=Plato}}
** [http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/authrec?fk_authors=93 Works by Plato] at [[Project Gutenberg]]
+
** [http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/authrec?fk_authors=688 Spurious and doubtful works]
** [http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/authrec?fk_authors=688 Spurious and doubtful works] at [[Project Gutenberg]]
+
** [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1497 ''The Republic'']
** [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/plato/default.asp Plato complete works, annotated and searchable, at ELPENOR]
+
* [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/plato/default.asp Plato Complete Works] at ELPENOR
* [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/seventh.letter.html Plato's seventh letter]
+
* [http://plato-dialogues.org/plato.htm Plato and his Dialogues] by Bernard Suzanne
* {{PerseusAuthor | Plato}}
 
*[http://librivox.org/euthyphro-by-plato/ A free audiobook of Plato's ''Euthyphro'']
 
 
 
 
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
 
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/ Plato]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/ Plato]
Line 389: Line 193:
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-utopia/ Plato on Utopia]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-utopia/ Plato on Utopia]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/ Rhetoric and Poetry]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/ Rhetoric and Poetry]
*Allegory of Cave
+
* Other articles
**[http://youtube.com/watch?v=htW2NHektqs&mode=related&search=] Video of the Cave on Youtube
+
** [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/guthrie-plato.asp Excerpt from W. K. C. Guthrie, ''A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. IV: Plato: The Man and His Dialogues, Earlier Period''] (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 8-38.
** [http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/plato.html Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic] at [[Washington State University]]
+
** [http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/plato.htm "Plato and Totalitarianism: A Documentary Study"] &ndash; World Future Fund
* *[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1497 Plato: The Republic] at [[Project Gutenberg]]
 
* *[http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm  Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic] at [[University of Washington]] - Faculty
 
* *[http://www.thoughtaudio.com/titlelist/0034-plato/index.html The Allegory of the Cave: From Book VII of the Republic] Free mp3 downloads Narrated by Michael Scott of [http://www.thoughtaudio.com/ ThoughtAudio.com]
 
 
 
* Other Articles:
 
** [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/guthrie-plato.asp Excerpt from W.K.C. Guthrie, ''A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. IV, Plato: the man and his dialogues, earlier period'', Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 8-38]
 
** [http://plato-dialogues.org/plato.htm Website on Plato and his works: Plato and his dialogues by Bernard Suzanne]
 
** [http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Are-there-really-Platonic-forms-/53 Are there really Platonic forms?]
 
** [http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/plato.htm "Plato and Totalitarianism: A Documentary Study"]
 
 
 
 
 
[[Category:Platonism|*]]
 
[[Category:Ancient Greek philosophers]]
 
[[Category:Philosophers of language|Plato]]
 
[[Category:Philosophers of law|Plato]]
 
[[Category:Political philosophers]]
 
[[Category:Ancient Greek physicists]]
 
[[Category:Ancient Athenians]]
 
[[Category:Ancient Greek vegetarians|Plato]]
 
[[Category:427 B.C.E. births]]
 
[[Category:347 B.C.E. deaths]]
 
 
 
[[category:philosophy and religion]]
 
  
{{credit5|Plato|88764844|Platonic_realism|88135333|Platonic_epistemology|82627198|Allegory_of_the_Cave|88490220|Analogy_of_the_divided_line|88717149}}
+
{{credits|Plato|88764844|Platonic_realism|88135333|Platonic_epistemology|82627198|Allegory_of_the_Cave|88490220|Analogy_of_the_divided_line|88717149}}

Revision as of 16:28, 7 May 2015


Plato

Plato (c. 428 B.C.E. – c. 348 B.C.E.) was a Greek philosopher and is perhaps the most famous and influential thinker in the history of Western thought. He was a student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle. He founded the Academy in Athens where he lectured and taught. He also wrote dialogues on a variety of philosophical subjects such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, psychology, politics, and aesthetics. Because he wrote in dialogue rather than treatise form, however, his ideas on these subjects are not systematically analyzed but presented in the more ambiguous and ironic form of the drama. This has resulted in a variety of interpretations of Plato’s work and debates continue today over the precise meanings of his main philosophical ideas.

Among the most famous of his philosophical contributions are the accounts he provides of his teacher Socrates and the Socratic method of teaching, his doctrine of the Ideas or “forms,” his theory of recollection, and his notion of dialectic as collection and division. His Republic remains one of the classic works in all of western civilization.

Biography

Plato was born in Athens in approximately 428 B.C.E. He was raised in a moderately wealthy, aristocratic family with high political connections. His father was named Ariston and his mother Perictione. According to a late Hellenistic account by Diogenes Laertius, Plato's given name was Aristocles. Various alternatives are offered at how Plato received his name. One possibility is that his wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, dubbed him "Platon" (meaning "broad") on account of his robust figure. Another alternative is that his name derived from the breadth (platutês) of his eloquence, and still a third from the fact that he was very wide (platus) across the forehead. In any case, in his youth Plato was a gifted wrestler and his intellectual abilities were so advanced that his fellow Greeks declared him to be the son of Apollo. In fact, it was rumored that in his infancy bees had settled on his lips as a prophecy of the honeyed words which would flow from them.

At some point in his youth Plato became a devoted pupil of Socrates, the famous “wandering scholar” who sat on the street corners of Athens and engaged the young men of the city in intellectual discussions. It was primarily through the texts of Plato, in fact, that we learn of the life, teachings, and death of Socrates. It is considered a matter of record that Plato attended his master's trial and execution so that the Apology, although written in dramatic form is nonetheless considered to be a fairly accurate historical account. Moreover as he was deeply affected by the city's unfair treatment of Socrates much of Plato’s work is devoted to the problem of social and political injustice. During the twelve years following the death of Socrates, Plato traveled extensively throughout Italy, Sicily, Egypt, and Cyrene. During his travels, however, he did not merely wander about in search of pleasure but rather engaged in a sustained and comprehensive quest for knowledge.

After his return to Athens at the age of 40, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools in Western civilization on a plot of land in the grove of Academe. The “Academy,” as it was famously called, was a large, protected plot of land that was supposedly named after either an Athenian citizen named Academus or else some ancient Greek hero. The school operated until 529 C.E., which makes it the longest running academic institution in the history of western civilization. Many intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Plato’s pupil Aristotle.

Plato died around 348 B.C.E. at the age of 80 or 81.

Dialogue as a Philosophical Form

Raphael's Plato in The School of Athens fresco, probably in the likeness of Leonardo da Vinci. Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in “the Forms.”

Although not the first Greek philosopher, Plato is arguably the most famous and influential; the twentieth-century philosopher Alfred North Whitehead famously said that the history of philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato.

One of the main reasons for Plato’s primacy is that in Plato we have the first collected body of philosophical literature. Unlike Socrates, who did not write at all and unlike the pre-Socratics whose writings are retained in fragmented form in Plato, there is a body of work which scholars have pored over for centuries. Interestingly, however, unlike Aristotle, Plato did not write in the form of philosophical treatises; rather he chose to write in the dramatic form of dialogue. Although the specific dialogues differ in various ways, in general they approach philosophical subjects through the conversation of characters, who pose questions to one another. In most of the dialogues Socrates figures as the protagonist and a number of interlocutors are defeated by his logical form of questioning initially known as “elenchus” and later in the more sophisticated form called “dialectic.”

Some scholars believe that the nature of the dialogues changed a great deal over the course of Plato's life. According to this theory, works believed to date from earlier in Plato's life are more closely based on Socrates' thought, whereas later writings increasingly break away from the views of his former teacher. This theory holds that in the so-called middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own philosophy, and the question-and-answer style is more formal: the main figure represents Plato and the minor characters have little to say except "yes," "of course" and "very true," or "by Zeus, yes." The late dialogues, then, read more like treatises, and Socrates is often absent or quiet. It is assumed by defenders of this theory that while some of the early dialogues could be based on Socrates' actual conversations, the later dialogues were written entirely by Plato. The question of which, if any, of the dialogues are truly Socratic is known as the “Socratic problem.”

Given that he wrote in the artistic style of a dialogue means that to some extent Plato can be considered a poet as much as a philosopher. This makes the reader’s interpretation of Plato’s texts more ambiguous and problematic, for the form of dialogue distances both Plato (as author) and the given reader from the ideas that are being discussed in the text.

For this reason, scholars tend to read the dialogues in one of two ways. Some scholars choose to participate in the dialogues by concentrating on the ideas and arguments under discussion and in doing so ignore the “aesthetic” aspects, such as the personalities of the different characters, the use of irony, and the specific contexts in which the discussions take place. Other scholars, however, read the personalities, ironies, and contexts as contributing to the philosophical meanings contained within the text as well as Plato’s overall understanding of philosophical discourse. In doing this, the latter often interpret Plato as putting unpopular opinions in the mouth of unsympathetic characters (such as with Thrasymachus in the Republic). In this way, Plato lets his readers observe and compare the conversations that Socrates has with different characters and so ponder why some of these conversations are more fruitful than others.

Chronology

The exact order in which Plato's dialogues were written is not known, nor is the extent to which some might have been later revised and rewritten. However, according to scholars there is enough information internal to the dialogues to form a rough chronology, although the exact criteria to determine this chronology are often disputed. In any case, as mentioned above the dialogues are normally grouped into three fairly distinct periods, with a few of them considered transitional works, and some just difficult to place. So although the ordering is still highly disputed, the generally agreed upon chronology is divided into early, middle, and late dialogues.

Early dialogues

Socrates figures in all of these dialogues, and they are generally considered to be the most faithful representations of the historical Socrates; hence they are also called the “Socratic dialogues.” Most of them consist of Socrates discussing a subject, often an ethical one (such as friendship or piety) with a friend or with some presumed expert on the subject. Through a series of pointed questions Socrates usually demonstrates his interlocutor’s ignorance. These dialogues usually end inconclusively and so the reader is left to figure out how much Socrates (or the reader) really understands. These dialogues tend to be considered examples of Socrates’ method of "indirect teaching,” which allows readers to come to answers themselves without being directly told. This period also includes several pieces surrounding the trial and execution of Socrates. The dialogues from this period are as follows:

  • Apology
  • Crito
  • Charmides
  • Laches
  • Lysis
  • Euthyphro
  • Menexenus
  • Lesser Hippias
  • Ion

The following dialogues are variously considered transitional or middle period dialogues:

  • Gorgias
  • Protagoras
  • Meno

Middle dialogues

Late in the early dialogues, Plato's Socrates actually begins supplying direct answers to some of the questions he poses and so puts forth positive doctrines on the subject under discussion. That is, he offers “hypotheses” or scientific regarding the various subject matter. This is generally interpreted to be the first appearance of Plato's own views. The perhaps most prominent idea offered in the middle dialogues is the idea that knowledge derives from unchanging forms or essences (“Doctrine of Ideas”). Other Platonic theories include the immortality of the soul, recollection, and specific doctrines about justice, truth, and beauty. The Symposium and the Republic are considered to be the centerpieces of Plato's middle period.

  • Euthydemus
  • Cratylus
  • Phaedo
  • Phaedrus
  • Symposium
  • Republic
  • Theaetetus
  • Parmenides

Late Dialogues

In the Parmenides Plato presents a series of criticisms of his “Doctrine of Ideas,” which are often taken to indicate Plato's abandonment of this theory, though some scholars have challenged this characterization. In most of the remaining dialogues, however, the theory is either absent or at least appears under a different guise in discussions about kinds or classes of things. In these later dialogues Socrates is either absent or a minor figure in the discussion. An apparently new method for doing dialectic known as "collection and division" is also featured, most notably in the Sophist and Statesman.

A basic description of collection and division would go as follows: interlocutors attempt to discern the similarities and differences among things in order to get a clear idea about what they in fact are. One understanding, suggested in some passages of the Sophist is that this is what philosophy is always in the business of doing and is doing even in the early dialogues. In the later dialogues, however, this way of doing philosophy is made explicit while it was only implicit in the earlier dialogues.

  • Sophist
  • Statesman
  • Philebus
  • Timaeus
  • Critias
  • Laws

Philosophical Themes

Ethics and the Good

As mentioned above, the early dialogues of Plato are usually considered to reflect the teachings of the historical figure Socrates. The greatest legacy of Socrates is perhaps his ethical striving for the “good life.” For both Socrates and Plato, the ethical life was inextricably connected to the intellectual life such that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Now for the ancient Greeks, ethics was not as much about the instruction of moral rules as it was the cultivation of a “way of life” which involved both the acquisition of virtues as well as the practice of reflection.

“Philosophy” involved both of these and only through the practice of both does one attain the happy or good life. This close connection between knowledge and goodness meant that “evil” was aligned with ignorance. This means that no one willing does evil, but only what one thinks to be good (i.e., the apparent good).

The Socratic dialogues are devoted, then, to the questioning of what are individual virtues (e.g., friendship, piety) as well as what is virtue itself. Whereas the early Socratic dialogues raise significant ethical questions by refuting those who are often reputed to be “wise” (such as the Sophists), these dialogues often end inclusively. Plato’s middle dialogues, on the other hand, tend to offer hypotheses (or possible answers) to such questions of what is justice (the Republic) or what is love (the Symposium).

Plato’s analyses of these ethical concepts are usually presented by first considering the most popular or ordinary ways of thinking of these concepts and moves to higher more metaphysical ways of considering them. In fact, some interpreters view Plato’s philosophy as mystical such that the ethical or good life is essentially an ascent of the human soul to the Good. Other scholars, however, claim this mystical element is “read into” Plato texts (mainly by his followers, called the Neoplatonists). Instead these other commentators insist that Plato be understood as a rationalist. In any case, the one undeniable aspect that Plato shares with both his mentor Socrates and his pupil Aristotle is the centrality of the good life and the human search for happiness through the practice of philosophy.

Plato’s Psychology and the Integrated Soul

While pursuing the subject of justice in the Republic Plato examines the notion of the human soul (book IV). Although in the hindsight of 2,500 years it is easy to view Plato’s separation of the soul into three fundamental parts as being overly simplistic, in doing so we often overlook both the groundbreaking work Plato was doing as well as the complexity of his ideas when studied in the relation to the complete texts in which we find these ideas. In any case, Plato divided the soul into three parts: the appetitive part, the spirited or emotional part, and the intellectual part. The appetitive part seeks the fulfillment of various bodily pleasures such as food, drink, sex, etc. The spirited or emotional part seeks honor and dignity. Finally, the intellectual part seeks truth and knowledge.

Although Plato is often thought of as a dualist who degrades the bodily desires in favor of the higher, intellectual pleasures of learning, it is important to see that his understanding of justice and the happiness of the human soul is directed at attaining a certain harmony or integration of the different parts or powers of ourselves. So he did not hold that we should “starve” the physical desires of our bodily appetites but merely to control them in an intelligent and wise manner.

This means that the intellectual part or power must be in control, or otherwise our bodily desires will wreak havoc in its reckless striving for its own fulfillment (Plato uses the metaphor of a many-headed beast, which devours itself in self-consumption). But if our bodily appetites are to be directed by the intellect in an intelligently ordered way it requires the discipline of the spirited part to tame and to cultivate the bodily desires in an appropriate way. The harmonious or rightly ordered soul, then, is one which practices the virtues of each part. The virtue of the appetites is moderation; the virtue of the spirit is courage; the virtue of the intellect is wisdom. Through these virtues the human soul attains a certain concord or integrity, which Plato understood as the only real happiness worthy of the name.

We should note, then, that Plato’s division into three parts was not intended to be exhaustive but merely points to the need for a well-ordered integration of all the different powers of our being in order to attain happiness. At the same time, however, we can see the longstanding impact his analysis of soul has had on western civilization, particularly in the Christian tradition where the soul is considered to be a tripartite relation of mind, body, and spirit. Moreover, various modern psychologies continually draw from Plato, such as Sigmund Freud’s theory of the ego, superego, and id. Finally, in the Phaedo, Plato offers arguments for the immortality of the soul such that philosophy is to be understood primarily as a preparation for death.

Metaphysics and epistemology

Theory of recollection

One of the most famous elements in Plato’s philosophy is his theory of recollection. Although the exact nature of this theory is disputed, it is commonly held that Plato believed that all our ideas are innate such that all learning is a remembering. As said above, for Plato the soul is immortal. At birth, however, as the soul is cast into a body it is thrown into a state of forgetfulness. Learning, then, is a process of reawakening to what we already know in the depths of our souls but is nonetheless concealed to our normal, everyday consciousness.

Plato often viewed the process of life as a moving from darkness or a state of sleep toward the light and full wakefulness. Given this view Plato viewed teachers such as Socrates to be not instructors who instill knowledge but rather as “midwives” whose job is simply to help give birth to those ideas that are already within us. In the Meno, for example, Plato presents Socrates at work with a slave-boy who initially thinks he knows the answer to a geometry problem but is shown that he really is ignorant. Once shown his own ignorance, however, the boy is “perplexed” and so is now ready to learn. Socrates walks him through the problem by asking the boy questions and eventually the boy arrives at the correct answer. Plato uses this example in order to demonstrate that our ideas are already within us, for how else could the boy “recognize” the correct answer. The example, though, hardly offers indisputable proof and so Plato’s theory of recollection has been widely contested by later philosophers, notably Aristotle.

The Doctrine of Ideas

Detail of The School of Athens by Raphael (1509), showing Plato (pointing upwards, as if to the Form of the Good) and Aristotle (holding his hand palm down to Earth, favoring material evidence).

Besides being devoted to Socrates, Plato was also deeply influenced by a number of earlier philosophers, known today as the “Pre-Socratics.” This included Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, whose notions of numerical harmony have clear echoes in Plato's notion of the Ideas; Anaxagoras, who was Socrates’ teacher and who held that the mind or reason pervades everything; Parmenides, who argued for the unity of all things and who may have influenced Plato's concept of the soul; and Heraclitus, who held that fire is the fundamental element of the universe and who also said that “all is in flux” or in a state of becoming.

In regard to the theory of knowledge it was the attempt to find a “middle way” between Parmenides’ notion that “all is one” and Heraclitus’ notion that everything is in movement and so changing that led Plato to introduce his famous Doctrine of Ideas. Plato recognized with Heraclitus that everything in the material world is constantly changing. And yet, if we can acquire knowledge (and Plato thought we could), something must be stable or permanent such that when we know “it” we know the truth. For this reason Plato held that our “Ideas” were these stable and permanent entities that did not change. To know or “see” these Ideas is to know the truth, the unchangeable. Today, these ideas are often called “universals.”

Plato considered philosophical knowledge to be closely aligned with mathematics because in math we achieve perfect knowledge (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4 and no other answer is possible). A mathematical example, then, helps us to understand his Doctrine of Ideas. For example, we can come to know the definition of a triangle: an enclosed three-sided figure whose lines are perfectly straight and whose angles add up to exactly 180 degrees. Now any individual or particular triangle that we draw, no matter how fine our technical instruments, will always be slightly flawed even if only by the smallest fraction (e.g., the angles only add up to 179.99999 degrees). These particular or material triangles, therefore, are imperfect. Moreover, since they were drawn in some material or sensible form means they can be destroyed (by burning the paper, chalkboard, etc.) What and where, then, is the perfect triangle? It must be an Idea, one that exists only in the immaterial realm that our minds can participate in. The Idea of a triangle, which is perfect, will never change. It is permanent, ideal, or eternal.

Plato applied this theory, in turn, to all living things. The Idea of a human being is eternal, permanent and perfect (ideal), although we individual humans are mortal, changing, and imperfect. We will die (at least physically for Plato), though the Idea will not. The same holds for the Idea of dog or flower. All the individual human beings, dogs, and flowers merely participate in the one, eternal Idea (of Human Being, Dog, Flower).

Plato’s theory of Ideas has led many scholars to consider his philosophy to be a “metaphysical dualism” (which is sometimes referred to as a “Platonic or metaphysical realism”) in that the Ideas are not merely abstract entities in our minds but ontological realities that exist in some higher, eternal realm. And so, Plato's metaphysics seems to divide reality into two distinct worlds: the intelligible world of Ideas, and the perceptual, sensible, or physical world of the earthly realm. The sensible world consists of imperfect copies of the intelligible Ideas. Again, these Ideas are unchangeable and perfect, and are only accessible and comprehensible by the use of the intellect or understanding. In Plato the intellect often seems to be equated with the soul so that essentially it does not include sensible perception or the imagination.

In the Republic books VI and VII, Plato uses a number of metaphors or analogies to explain (or at least suggest) his metaphysical view. They are: the Analogy of the Sun, the Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave. Taken together, these metaphors offer a complex but suggestive metaphysical and epistemological theory whose exact meaning significance, and relation scholars have debated for over two millennia. Let us look at each one in turn.

Analogy of the Sun

In all of Plato’s analogies it is important to remember that he often uses metaphors from the physical world in order to reflect a relation that is similar in the intellectual world. In the analogy of the sun, then, he compares the medium of light that allows us to perceive visible things as similar to the medium of understanding that allows us to perceive intellectual things. In order to see a physical object, like a tree, the organ of our eyes requires light to shine on the object we are seeing. Without the light we would see nothing, but remain in darkness. The source of the light that enables us to see is the sun. A similar relation holds in the intellectual world of our minds. In order to see an intellectual object (an idea) it requires the light of understanding. We may, at first, perceive an idea dimly. That is, we have a sense of what something means, but only vaguely. Often only after working at it or thinking about it, do we come to grasp the concept or idea in a precise and clear manner. That is, we understand it or “see” it for ourselves. But what, then, is the source of this light of understanding? Plato calls it the Good. The Good is comparable to the sun in being the source of all the Ideas and the source of the light that illuminates them so we can see or understand them.

Analogy of the Divided Line

In the Analogy of the Divided Line, Plato again divides the physical and intellectual worlds. In the center of the line there is a dividing mark which separates the two realms. Two other lines are drawn which further separate each of those two realms. There are, then, four distinct regions. On one side of the line Plato marks the human power that functions at a certain level of perception; on the other side of the line he marks the kind of object that is being perceived. So at the very bottom region there is the human power of imagination which perceives objects that are likened to shadows. This region is considered to be a kind of fantasy made possible by our power of dreaming. The objects we perceive are not “real” but fabricated or devised by our own fancy. In the next region we have the power of our senses through which we perceive actual physical objects (physical trees, flowers, humans, etc). As we saw earlier these objects in being physical are susceptible to change. For this reason, the “knowledge” we achieve of these sensible things is merely opinion.

In the third region we have now passed from the sensible world to the intellectual world. The power we use here is the faculty of thought in which we now question and think about those things in the lower realm that we had merely perceived through our senses. In asking questions we inquire into what a flower or a tree or a human being really is. What is their nature or essence? In doing this, we begin to form hypotheses or possible answers to what these things really are. But only by passing into the fourth level do we arrive at knowledge in the full sense of the word. In this region we perceive through the power of understanding and now see the Idea itself. The exact nature of this fourth region is often debated about, but it would seem that for Plato in understanding the mind grasps the Idea through a kind of immediate intuition, a flash of illuminating recognition where we “see the truth.”

We grasp the Idea of flower, tree, or human being. This Analogy of the Divided Line, then, suggests an ascending order in the degrees of knowing both in terms of the human faculty that is being used in knowing and the object which is being known or perceived. At the conclusion of the analogy Plato even suggests a highest order of knowing which relates to the analogy of the sun. This highest level of knowing is the direct perception of the source of light itself, that is, the Good.

Allegory of the Cave

Whereas the Analogy of the Divided Line is often criticized as being too static in its divisions of knowledge, the Analogy of the Cave captures in a more dynamic manner the idea of knowing as a passing through various stages. As with the Divided Line there are four distinct stages, which ultimately culminates in the mind’s beholding the Good, but in this analogy there is a more narrative structure, which suggests the journey of the soul in its ascent to the Good.

The first stage depicts prisoners inside a cave whose bodies and necks are chained so that they so are forced to stare at the wall before them. Behind their backs is a great, blazing fire which casts light and before the fire are artifacts, which have been made in the form of real things like trees, animals, and human beings. Shadows of the artifacts appear like puppets on the wall and so from the prisoners’ perspectives these shadows appear to be real things, for they are the only reality they know.

Stage two commences when one of the prisoners is suddenly freed from his chains and so is able to turn his head around. At first the strength of the light of the fire blurs his vision. Over time his eyes adjust, and so he begins to see the artifacts and the fire behind them. This, then, appears to be reality.

Stage three begins when this prisoner is dragged along the path that winds up and out of the cave. Eventually the prisoner arrives above ground and out into the world above. He now beholds the daylight and his eyes are even more bedazzled. Again, it takes time to adjust but when he does he sees the reflections of things (such as trees, animals, and human beings) as they appear in the water of ponds.

After that he enters stage four where he can look directly at the things themselves, the real trees, animals, and people. Finally, at the highest degree he looks up into the light itself and sees the sun. In this way, the former prisoner is finally free from the illusions below and is able to see things as they really are. In fact, he pities the prisoners below who are still in the dark and so only see images and imitations of real things but not the things themselves.

Having arrived at this enlightened state (of philosophy) the man wishes he could remain above ground in contemplation of the light of truth. Having pity on those below who are still imprisoned, however, he descends back down into the cave. It is so dark, though, his eyes again need time to adjust and everything looks disoriented and unclear. Although the returned philosopher tries to help the others see, he is not welcomed but ridiculed. In fact, when he persists in revealing to them their illusions, he ultimately is killed. For the people prefer to live in the darkness than to make the difficult ascent into the light above ground.

Throughout these stages, then, we see how Plato conceives the process of education and learning as an intellectual ascent from darkness into light. This ascent involves transitioning into higher degrees of knowledge that ultimately is aimed at beholding the Good itself. Moreover, we can see how the stages in the Allegory of the Cave correlate with the divisions in the Divided Line. The shadows on the cave wall are analogous to the shadows of the deluded images created by our imagination. The artifacts are like the physical objects that are illuminated by the fire of the physical sun. Making the ascent out of the cave and into the sunlight above is like moving from the sensible world into the intellectual world of the mind.

Initially in asking questions we begin to think for ourselves and form pseudo-ideas of possible answers in the form of scientific hypotheses. Eventually, though, if persistent, we come to grasp the “real things,” so like the freed prisoner we now see in the light of day the Ideas themselves. Finally in the decent of the philosopher back into the cave we see Plato’s obvious allusion to Socrates as the enlightened one who in trying to open the eyes of his fellow citizens is greeted with death.

Political philosophy

Plato's philosophical views had many societal implications, especially on the idea of an ideal state or government. There is some discrepancy between his early and later views. Some of the most famous doctrines are contained in the Republic during his middle period. However, because Plato wrote dialogues, it is assumed that Socrates is often speaking for Plato. This assumption may not be true in all cases.

Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that the ideal society would have a tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the individual soul.

  • Productive (Workers) — the laborers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
  • Protective (Warriors or Auxiliaries) — those who are adventurous, strong and brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
  • Governing (Rulers or Guardians) — those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.

According to this model, the principles of Athenian democracy (as it existed in his day) are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato held that reason and wisdom should govern. This does not equate to tyranny, despotism, or oligarchy, however. As Plato puts it:

Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race. (Republic 473c-d)

Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" (Republic 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. Sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the Republic then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.

However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the Republic is qualified by Socrates as the ideal luxurious city, examined to determine how it is that injustice and justice grow in a city (Republic 372e). In addition, the ideal city is used as an image to illuminate the state of one's soul, and how the desires, emotions, and reason are combined in the human soul. Socrates is attempting to make an image of a rightly ordered human, and then later goes on to describe the different kinds of humans that can be observed, from tyrants to lovers of money in various kinds of cities. The ideal city is not promoted, but only used to magnify the different kinds of individual humans and the state of their soul.

According to Socrates, then, a state that is made up of different kinds of souls will eventually decline from an aristocracy to a timocracy to an oligarchy to a democracy and finally to tyranny. It is often thought that Plato is trying to warn us of the various kinds of immoderate souls that can rule over a state, and what kind of wise souls are best to advise and give counsel to the rulers that are often lovers of power, money, fame, and popularity. In contrast, though, the philosopher king image has been used by many political thinkers after Plato to justify an aristocratic system of rule.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • Plato. 1961. Collected Dialogues. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691097186

Secondary Sources

  • Bakalis, Nikolaos. 2005. Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments. Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1412048435
  • Fine, Gail. 2000. Plato 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198752067
  • Guthrie, W. K. C. 1986. A History of Greek Philosophy (Plato - The Man & His Dialogues - Earlier Period). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521311012
  • Guthrie, W. K. C. 1986. A History of Greek Philosophy (Later Plato & the Academy). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521311020
  • Havelock, Eric. 2005. Preface to Plato (History of the Greek Mind). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 0674699068
  • Irwin, Terence. 1995. Plato's Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195086457
  • Kraut, Richard (ed.). 1993. The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521436109
  • Sallis, John. 1996. Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253210712
  • Taylor, A. E. 2001. Plato: The Man and His Work. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. ISBN 0486416054
  • Vlastos, Gregory. 1981. Platonic Studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691100217

External links

All links retrieved May 7, 2015.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.