And Plato!

So I’ve been reading about Plato’s philosophies lately. As part of our preparation for SAT exam, we are trying to better our reading skills (and become faster readers) through an extensive reading from both literature and philosophy. Since I feel better and much improved when I write about what I am reading, and since I have always understood things better when people have discussed about it in front of me, I am hereby starting a discussion here, not only on Plato and his philosophies, but also on what LitNetters have to say about his approaches to the solution of the problem of the universals. So please be kind and contribute!

The problem with studying anything on Plato’s philosophies is that I go from one thing to another, never remembering where it all started. That way, I lose track on things I have read, and get lost in his theories. It is not easy for me to just pass by these things and touch them and get a hint of what they’re all about. My curiosity (which most definitely kills the cat) leads me from one thing to another and I never get to read anything else other than Plato! Just this evening, for instance, as I was looking through the allegory of the cave, I kept reading that and went from there to his theory of ideas from which I started reading about what “Forms”-- according to Plato—are, before finishing which I started reading about the problem of universals and… after several hours I found myself reading about Parmenides.

One main reason behind such curiosity on Plato is, without doubt, the way the anti-platonic Bertrand Russell plays with the words. (I have been reading his History of Western Philosophy.) Take these paragraphs for instance:

Quote:

---

Consider a man who loves beautiful things, who makes a point of being present at new tragedies, seeing new pictures, and hearing new music. Such a man is not a philosopher, because he loves only beautiful things, whereas the philosopher loves beauty in itself. The man who only loves beautiful things is dreaming, whereas the man who knows absolute beauty is wide awake. The former has only opinion; the latter has knowledge.

What is the difference between ‘knowledge’ and’ opinion’? The man who has knowledge has knowledge of something, that is to say, of something that exists, for what does not exist is nothing. (This is reminiscent of Parmenides.) Thus knowledge is infallible, since it is logically impossible for it to be mistaken. But opinion can be mistaken. How can this be? Opinion cannot be of what is not, for that is impossible; nor of what is, for then it would be knowledge. Therefore opinion must be of what is and is not.

---

One of the most interesting reads has been about Plato’s Forms. But I still get rather confused about them. May be you people could help a bit? Please chip in some of your thoughts on Plato’s Forms. :)

(At Mods: I hope I have posted this in the right place. If I haven’t, by all means move.)

I would definitely be interested in discussing the Allegory of the Cave.

http://<b>http://www.youtube.com/wat...9F7GhASOdM</b>

i found this to be quite nice and simple, an adaptation of the allegory in clay.

another good one is this: http://<b>http://www.youtube.com/wat...Ei7LqbYb8M</b>

Yes Symphony the allegory of the cave is the key (I'm not an expert on philosophy) as far as i can tell to Plato. The images the fire project are the ideal that exist metaphysically while the tangible real objects are flawed replications of the ideal. To Plato the ideal is actually reality, or perhaps better said, a truer reality, while the tangible is a lesser replication. I hope this helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yes Symphony the allegory of the cave is the key (I'm not an expert on philosophy) as far as i can tell to Plato. The images the fire project are the ideal that exist metaphysically while the tangible real objects are flawed replications of the ideal. To Plato the ideal is actually reality, or perhaps better said, a truer reality, while the tangible is a lesser replication. I hope this helps.

---

NO! NO! NO! (Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean!)

First, the allegory is just a metaphor. Yes, it is important, but it's only a poor representation of what Plato is trying to explain. The divided line is actually what he's talking about. (An aside, the very fact that the allegory is a representation of the truth Plato is trying to describe, actually further explains the relationship between the ideal and what we have in front of us. The allegory's purpose in the book actually makes its own point!)

Second, the shadows are not the ideal. They are the false representations of true things. But, this does not mean that the tangible is better or that those shadows/forms are ideal. (Remember, this story is just a metaphor to help explain Plato's line.) The tangible objects that are held up are only poor representations of actual things - like puppets. Only when leaving the cave, and sesing actual trees, rocks -the glorious sun(Truth) - do we get a sense of reality. However, Plato does not mean that by touching and seeing these real things we get the truth. Nor do the shadows on the wall represent the ideal forms. It's only in the metaphor that the real objects are truer than the shadows on the wall.

I know that was hastily put together, let me know if it made sense. If not, I will elaborate more clearly.

Thanks for the correction Uber. I see what you mean. It's been a while for me. Yes it makes sense. :) So to summarize, the analogy is that the shadows are to the tangible as the tangible is to the ideal. Would you say that's correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Thanks for the correction Uber. I see what you mean. It's been a while for me. Yes it makes sense. :) So to summarize, the analogy is that the shadows are to the tangible as the tangible is to the ideal. Would you say that's correct?

---

That's basically correct. The allegory helps illustrate the hierarchy Plato describes with the divided line.

For some reason I thought this was in the philosophy section.. BUT, I am sorry I missed these posts a few days ago.

Uberzsensch, are you aware at all of Buddhist or Eastern philosophy in general? I would be interested to know what you think. I mean, in terms of parallels between it and the Allegory of the Cave.


To me, the Allegory of the Cave is not so much about the ideal as about what is real and false. The prisoners have for all their lives watched the shadows, believing them to be real, but actually they are not real. They are ephemereal. And there are many nice subtleties to it; as, for instance, someone saying to the prisoners, trying to tell them that everything they know is false - such a person will be deemed mad and ridiculed.

To me, it is similar to Buddhism, and in fact the Allegory is literally true. Buddhism teaches that this world is Samsara, just as Hinduism does, or Maya. Maya or Samsara is purely illusion. Plato's Allegory is just a demonstration of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy. It is written in words but we don't live on words. It is just one way of communicating the sense of a higher reality, transcendent of the world of shadows.