RoR: Forum

Fred,

Interesting article. But, if it isn't the point of a dialogue to present the views of the author, what is the point? Even your dialogue presents your view on Plato's dialogues, doesn't it?

ARI has recently released a lecture series by Greg Salmieri, a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh (your neck of the woods). The title is Platonism and the description given is: "Plato authored the world's first philosophical system. He offered unified answers to questions ranging from metaphysics to politics, mathematics to sex. Studying his thought sheds light on the history and nature of philosophy." What do you think?

Thanks,

Glenn

Post 1

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:04am

I also would like to add that, regarding Plato, there is much space for speculation. Either we see Plato through the eyes of Aristoteles or we try to decipher the dialogues that have survived in disregard of Aristoteles opinion. It's hard to come to an objective conclusion that might be the truth, so I'd not think that Mr. Long is so far away.
If we have no other basis than the dialogues, we have to name this entity the Plato-philosophy, if it may or may not be his work is of second-consequence.
What else would be the idea of discussing Plato at all?

(Edited by Max on 3/07, 8:04am)

Post 2

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 2:54pm

Glenn,

"But, if it isn't the point of a dialogue to present the views of the author, what is the point?"

To get us to think. Which is what Socrates seems to be doing in a lot of the dialogues. To get us to "check our premises." He was good at this because he claim not to know anything except that he was ignorant. If someone claimed to know, Socrates would cross examine him with the usual result the the person questioned would eventually confess that he too "didn't know."

You also asked about Greg Salmieri's Plato lectures. The blurb at ARI Bookstore says, "The focus of the course is the philosophy of Plato, especially as found in such central dialogues as the Meno, the Phaedo and the Republic."

That is precisely what I deny you can get from the MENO, PHAEDO AND REPUBLIC. I detail this in ch. 1 of my book, AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. I recommend Klein, Sallis, Friedlander and Brann et al for insight on how to read the dialogues.

Hope that helps.

Fred

Post 3

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:15pm

Max,

Your right--there is a lot of room for speculation here. But one passage that I may refer you to on this very topic is from Aristotle's PHYSICS, 209b11 "Plato says in the TIMAEUS that material and extension are the same, for that which participates [in a form sic] and extension are one and the same. Though he spoke in different ways there and in the things he said as unwritten teachings about that which participates, still he plainly said that place and extension are the same." (Sachs trans.)

Anyway, I've been teaching the dialogues this way for over 2 decades and I'm not going back to the old way.

"What�else would be the idea of discussing Plato at all?"

I look at it this way. If Aristotle, the master of them who know, got value from staying with Plato for 20 years, then that is some evidence that we ourselves can benefit from a lifetime of study of these incredible dialogues. It's the closet we can get to being members of the Academy.

Fred

Post 4

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:08pm

Fred - Did I get the following right from your dialogue?

Plato was a philosopher, but mostly an ancient version of a newspaper reporter.

Cool.

One question. Did you go to the noumenal realm to interview Plato or did you bring him down to the phenomenal realm? This time-travel stuff is so confusing...

Michael

Post 5

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:31pm

Max:
>I also would like to add that, regarding Plato, there is much space for speculation.

One of the best attempts to sort Plato's *actual* thought from the Socrates he portrays over the various dialogues is Greg Vlastos' "Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher". I recommend it.

- Daniel

Post 6

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:02pm

Enjoyed your talk with Plato, Fred. I like the creativity.

Anyone interested in philosophy has to read Plato. Theatetus, The Symposium, The Apology, Meno, Ion and The Republic would be at the top of my Intro to Philosophy readling list. They're a pleasure.

Plato is what I call a "question guy". He raises questions that I haven't considered before and pushes me to tighten my premises. Aristotle came along and did his best to answer Plato's questions. He did one hell of a good job too! Aristotle is an "answer guy" and Rand is an "answer gal".

In my opinion, Rand was influenced significantly by Plato's methodology. She wouldn't touch his ideas with a ten foot pole but she respected him as one of the few intellectually honest philosophers. Plato may or may not have come to erroneous conclusions about things, but he definitely gave it the old college try. The world is a better place because of it.

You make another good point Fred that if Plato was man enough to guide Aristotle and earn his greatest respect then Plato is worth looking into.

Post 7

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 6:13am

This article seems to be nitpicking. It�s the ideas that count for someone in my position. I�m not concerned whose mouth to assign those ideas. It�s convenient to say they are Plato�s but I have no axe to grind in the matter.

I do, however, find it odd to say that Plato/Socrates/etc are only raising questions. While the focus is on the process, is it not clear that Plato believes knowledge can be established? Is it not clear that certain beliefs are held by the author[s] of these dialogues? Fred, you don't believe you're being led to these beliefs?

(Edited by Jason Pappas
on 3/08, 6:15am)

Post 8

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:17am

Michael,

"Plato was a philosopher, but mostly an ancient version of a newspaper reporter."

Yes, but a reporter who was a creator. He invented many of the characters in the dialogues and, of course, in the Academy, he was a philosopher in the fullest sense of that word.

"Did you go to the noumenal realm to interview Plato or did you bring him down to the phenomenal realm?"

I tried to bring him down, but found instead that men has to rise to meet him.

Fred

Post 9

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:23am

Daniel,

Where is the Vlastos reprinted. I looked thru my extensive collection of Vlastos but could not find it. Help.
Thanks

Fred

Post 10

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:25am

Lance,

Glad you liked it. There are four more installments coming. Enjoy.

Fred

Post 11

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:42am

Jason,

"I do, however, find it odd to say that Plato/Socrates/etc are only raising questions."

But what is one to do with all those dialogues that end inconclusively? What is the "answer" there? In good Objectivist fashion, can't one regard them as exercises in premise checking. A lot of my students get pissed off at the dialogues because they see them as only asking questions. I remember one student at Wheeling Jesuit College who ask me during a class when we were going to get to Aristotle who would tell us what to think!!

And if it is answers you want, you can always go to Aristotle who tells us what Plato thought about the vexing questions of the day.

Fred

Post 12

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 10:12am

I�m on your side Fred. Cultivating the thinking process is the first order of business. Learning to ferret out assumptions and skillfully examine them is no easy task. And I�m still working at it after 50 years. However, Plato wasn�t a skeptic. He did believe that knowledge was possible. You don�t think in some of the dialogs he has an agenda?
(Edited by Jason Pappas
on 3/08, 10:14am)

Post 13

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 11:52am

Fred wrote:
>Daniel,
Where is the Vlastos reprinted. I looked thru my extensive collection of Vlastos but could not find it. Help.

It's published by Cornell UP, and on Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801497876/qid=1110311037/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7269083-5349704?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Good to see you're a Vlastos fan already, in which case you'll love it.

- Daniel

Post 14

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 11:58am

Jason writes:
>While the focus is on the process, is it not clear that Plato believes knowledge can be established?

My understanding is that both Plato (and following him, Aristotle) made the distinction between "knowledge" and "opinion". For them, "opinion" was that which could be reached by means of reason and observation, but was not true "knowledge". This could only be reached by *intuitively* grasping the "forms" (or with Aristotle, "essences").

- Daniel

Post 15

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:15pm

I do, however, find it odd to say that Plato/Socrates/etc are only raising questions.

Jason, my take on Plato is that he was rarely satisfied with answers. He was more satisfied by questions. There are people in the world like this and perhaps Fred is that way too. Yes Fred? No?

I do all I can to find definitive answers. Without them I feel like a lost puppy. But back to your point. I believe Plato was genuinely looking for answers over much of his life but was largely unable to establish enough truth to satisfy himself. He would have been adamant in saying, "Socrates was a good man!" and then he would struggle to explain what a good man was.

Also, remember what the world was like when Plato lived. It was a chaotic place. Athens had its nice sections of town but most of the world was composed of barbarians and witch doctors. It was only the dawn of Reason.

Post 16

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:20pm

Lance writes:
>Jason, my take on Plato is that he was rarely satisfied with answers. He was more satisfied by questions.

Hi Lance,

I think you will find it is the other way around. Socrates is the questioner, the eternal seeker after truth; Plato is the authoritarian possessor of it.

- Daniel

Post 17

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:41pm

JASON,

"You don�t think in some of the dialogs he has an agenda?"

Probably, but I always at a loss to determine what it is. Think of how many different schools claim the dialogues as their source of inspiration. The skeptics love them because Socrates claimed to know nothing. The idealism love him for different reason. The conservatives and authoritarians love him for what they take to be his conservative and authoritarian politics. Aristotle loved him as a man so great that evil men should never pronounde his name. At the end of the day, I'm only confident that Plato hid himself well in the dialogues. Now what Aristotle says about his esoteric unwritten stuff is another matter. And remember the 7th letter in which Plato tells us that only a fool commits his most serious thoughts to writing, since the written word cannot defend itself against bad interpretations. Maybe he preferred the face to face manner of his mentor.

Fred

Post 18

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:01pm

Daniel,

"My understanding is that both Plato (and following him, Aristotle) made the distinction between "knowledge" and "opinion". For them, "opinion" was that which could be reached by means of reason and observation, but was not true "knowledge". This could only be reached by *intuitively* grasping the "forms" (or with Aristotle, "essences")."

When Socrates makes his famous image of the divided line in Rep. VI, 509d he does so based on the distinction between the seen and the unseen. Knowledge pertains to the unseen and doxa or opinion to the seen.
Aristotle uses a different principle in NE, VI. He divides sophia, episteme and nous from phronesis and techne on the principle that the former three deal with things that cannot be otherwise, i.e., the eternal. The latter two deals with things which can be otherwise.
One of the "knowledge" dialogues is the SOPHIST, and there is a wonderful book out with that title by Heidegger, in which he spends the first 129 pages getting clear on NE, VI before attempting to "read" the SOPHIST. But good luck if you buy the book, for it is written in Greelish, which is one third Greek and two third English. (To say nothing of an occasion German expression.)

Fred

Post 19

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:09pm