Philosophy paper

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.1

PHIL 101 3. Plato (427-347 C.E.) 3.1 Biographical Information Plato came from a well to do Athenian family that had important political connections. Socrates became a major influence in his life. Plato's uncle Charmides knew Socrates well and Plato may have been introduced to Socrates through him. But more importantly, Plato observed Socrates in action. It was a risky thing to hang around Socrates because Socrates more often than not offended those in power or those who wanted to become part of the elite. He stepped on toes and crushed egos. Lots of the young men of Athens loved going to the agora (downtown marketplace) and watching Socrates rip apart the arguments of the elders, the businessmen, the politicians and military brass. What we know about Socrates comes mainly from Plato's treatment of his in the numerous dialogues Plato wrote. The dialogues are a bit like plays except they have no stage directions and they were to be read not performed. Plato attended the trial of Socrates, which is recounted in Plato's Apology (or "defense"). Not only does Plato put himself in the courtroom while Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth, we have evidence from other sources that puts Plato there. Yet I have always found it curious that Plato is nowhere to be found when Socrates is about to be executed. In the Phaedo ("fee-dough"), Plato has one of the characters state explicitly that Plato was absent: "Plato, I believe, was ill." How could you not be there when someone you cared so deeply about was about to die? Plato was "sick that day"? Yeah, right. Personally, I think he just couldn't handle it and chickened out. We know that Plato did have political aspirations, but he quickly gives them up after Socrates' execution. After Socrates' execution Plato traveled to Sicily, in southern Italy where he studied with the followers of Pythagoras. As we shall see, this association with the Pythagoreans formed another important aspect in the development of Plato's philosophy. He also traveled to Egypt. Another philosopher, Cratylus, who was a follower of Heraclitus (see Lecture 1), was another influence in Plato's development. We will see as well that Plato adopts a Heraclitean view of the world being in a state of constant change or flux. The most genuinely biographical bit writing is found in Plato's Letters. (Whether Plato is the author of the Letters is uncertain. Whoever wrote them did know a lot about Plato's life, however.) In the Seventh Letter there is a description of Plato's attempt to shape the views of the tyrant Dion, the ruler of the Greek city of Syracuse. It was a disaster, to put it mildly! 3.2 The dialogues. [You can read the dialogues and other works of Plato here.] Nearly everything Plato wrote has Socrates as the main character: Socrates discussing Justice (and much more) (Republic), Socrates at a dinner party (Symposium) drinking everyone else under the table, Socrates talking to generals about Courage (Laches) "lay-keys", Socrates discussing with Meno whether virtue can be taught (Meno) "me-know", Socrates discussing love (Phaedrus) "fee-druh-s" - some folks pronounce 'phae' as "fay (as in Fay Wray of "King Kong"

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.2

fame). Although other people wrote dialogues involving Socrates, when we speak of "Socratic dialogues", we basically mean Plato's dialogues in which Socrates is the protagonist. The names of the dialogues are usually named after Socrates' main interlocutor, e.g., Meno, Parmenides, Gorgias, Laches, Cratylus, Crito, and so forth. Some of these individuals and the other characters in the dialogues were historical figures, others are either unknown to us or were possibly composite characters or simply creations by Plato. We generally divide the dialogues into three groups: the early, middle and late dialogues. The early dialogues tend to be closer to the "actual" Socrates (if one can say such a thing). The topics discussed and the manner in which the themes are developed seem to be closer to how we believe Socrates would approach them. In the later dialogues, on the other hand, it is clear that Plato is just using Socrates as a mouthpiece for Plato's own views and as a means of promoting his much own, much more complex philosophical views. Plato founded the Academy, located in the outskirts of Athens, around 387 soon after his first visit to southern Italy. The school was located on the site of a sacred site. The Academy was devoted to philosophical research and political training. The most famous student of the Academy was Aristotle. Aristotle began studies at the Academy when he was seventeen and remained for about twenty years. Plato was around sixty years old when Aristotle entered the Academy. 3.3 Plato's Metaphysical philosophy In class we began a discussion of Plato's notion of "Forms" or "Ideas" (eidos - e?d??). We'll certainly be developing our understanding of his views of this and other matters. But for now, let's just focus on the key motivating philosophical perspective and the resulting philosophical mechanism. Note: Be careful not to confuse "idea" and "Idea". A small 'i' "idea" is your private, mental event, i.e., a notion you have about something. A capital 'I' "Idea" is a Platonic Form. The word "metaphysics" may be analyzed as follows: "meta" may be translated as after, above, beyond.; the "physics" (or "physis" in Greek) means both is the word for nature and the word for "the nature of a thing" or the nature or natural qualities of a thing. When we speak of a philosopher's "metaphysics" or "metaphysical" theory, we are dealing with that philosopher's account of the nature of reality and kind of things that are. We're exploring things beyond just what we see and experience in nature. Metaphysics is the "class" we take after we've had a course in the sciences. When philosophers are engaged in doing metaphysics they are examining the structure of reality. It is more extensive that even our physics of today because it examines things above or beyond physics, namely, non-physical entities such as God. It also digs "deeper" than even a contemporary physics course would because metaphysics takes on the really, really, deep questions: are there only physical objects, does every event have a cause, is there a God, what makes a thing be what it is, what is time, what is the nature of existence (or being)?

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.3

Pretty heady stuff. If you've seen the movie The Matrix, you already have some sense of the important distinctions Plato makes in his metaphysics. One key point is that what you see is definitely not what you get. There is the world of what you see before you, the world of things you touch, taste, see, and feel. This is the world of appearance. Neo grabs a cup of coffee on his way to work. He dances at the night club. He certainly thinks he has experienced all this. It's "real", right? Nope. What seems "real" is not at all real. What's real is the Matrix: those weird spider-like things, the humans in those pods, and so forth. Two worlds. The world of appearance and the world of Reality. We need to be a bit careful here with our use of the word "real". We have the two realms: what we think is going on in the world (e.g., eating at In-N-Out, drinking coffee, riding on BART) and what's actually going on (the Matrix itself and our tiny part in it). When we analyze this, we zoom out and contemplate the entire picture when we give our account. Our account shows that to explain what's really going on we must give account for two realms: the realm of appearance and the realm of the Real. (I'll use the capital 'R' to make the distinction here.) The world of appearances is certainly a part of our lives. But so is the world of the Real. From a moral point of view, we run across this same distinction: the Gator who live as though what's important is making enough money to buy her Bentley. Her "reality" is what she can see, buy and consume. She has shut off herself to "larger" questions of moral behavior, perhaps, or things that might deal with the ultimate meaning in life. On the flip side, there's the Gator who reads philosophy day and night (she's deep into metaphysics!), but has had her car booted and hasn't taken out the garbage in 12 years. Off in one world only and not aware of the other. In Plato's metaphysics there is a division between the realm of appearance (or "the sensory world") and the realm of the Real (or "being"), the kinds of objects are in each realm, and our ability to have knowledge of them. Concerns about knowledge are covered in the philosophical field we call "epistemology", from the Greek word, episteme, which means "knowledge". We can learn a lot about Plato's metaphysics and epistemology by studying something he describes in the Republic: the Divided Line. 3.4 The Divided Line The account of the Divided Line is in the Republic 509d-511e. Here's an excerpt: "Take a divided line divided into two equal parts, one to represent the visible order, the other the invisible; and divide each part again in the same proportion, symbolizing degrees of comparative clarity and obscurity." "And now you may take, as corresponding to the four sections, these four states of mind: intelligence for the highest, thinking for the second, belief for the third, and for the last imagining. These you may arrange as the terms in a proportion, assigning to each a degree of clearness and certainty corresponding to the measure in which their objects possess truth and reality."

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.4

The upper part of the Divided Line represents the Realm of Being or the World of the Forms. The lower part of the Divided Line represents the Realm of Appearance or the Sensory World.

Metaphysical Realm

Epistemological Status

The Good

The Forms

(Justice, Beauty, Love, Bed, Cow)

Understanding (nous)

Realm of the Forms

(The Realm of “Being”)

Mathematical Forms and

scientific objects (Triangles,

Circles, Squares)

Reasoning (dianoia)

Domain of Knowledge

(episteme)

Sensible objects (a bed, a chair, a beautiful person)

Opinion (pistis)

Realm of Appearances

(The Realm

of “becoming”)

Images of objects (reflections,

objects of art)

Imagination

(eikasia)

Domain of

Belief (doxa)

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.5

Things in the realm of Appearances are constantly changing and are impermanent. They are the least real entity that exists. Things in the realm of the Forms are immaterial, changeless and eternal. Think back to Socrates' questions. What is Beauty? What is the essence of Beauty? Giving me the name of a beautiful person doesn't give me the definition of the changeless essence of Beauty. The beautiful person, her features, even her existence, changes. Now will giving an example of beauty in culture-X does help because someone can always bring up a different example of beauty, say, from culture-Y. Everything in the realm of appearances changes. On the other hand, the Form of Beauty is changeless. The theory of Forms thus can help explain the many instances we experience of a quality or thing. For instance, the black of the shoes I'm wearing, the black of the tires on your car, the black toner in your printer, and the black of your t-shirt are all "black". They are instances of "black". But they all are imitations of the Form of Black. Plato's theory helps him explain why things change and never stay the same and it also helps explain how it is that many different things seem to share the same quality. Entities in the realm of appearance resemble their Form. Entities in the realm of appearance are said to "participate" or "imitate" or "be a copy of" the Forms. So, what makes Halle Berry beautiful is that she has an imitation of the real Beauty: she is beautiful, but she is not Beauty itself. The makes examples of beauty from different cultures "beautiful" is that they each share in the Form, "Beauty" or the Form "The Beautiful". Another example. You may be sitting in a chair right now. That chair does not represent the essence of "chair-ness"; it isn't the eternal, unchanging "Form of Chair". There are lots and lots of chairs in various states of sturdiness and shapes, right? If my chair has three legs and yours has four what makes them both chairs? They are both chairs because they each participate in the Form "Chair". With respect to levels of reality, a painting of the chair I am sitting is less real than the actual chair I am sitting in. The chair in the painting only resembles the actual chair. But even the chair I am sitting does not have full "being". Only entities that are eternal and immaterial can have complete being. The only things that are really Real, then, are the Forms. 3.5 The Good and the Sun Finally, a brief comment about what rests above the Divided Line. This is "The Good" or the Form of The Good. Form of the Good exists above all the other forms and is the source of all the other Forms. Since it is their source and consequently the source of all things, Plato puts The Good itself beyond all being and knowledge. Just as the Sun provides illumination for us to see things and gives sustenance to life, The Good is the source of all things and illuminates the Forms so that we may apprehend them. So, just as the sun provides us with sight, The Good provides us with intellectual "sight". Next, Socrates' method of investigation.

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.6

3.6 Socratic elenchos. As you've noticed, Socrates asks a lot of questions, but the answers he receives are rarely acceptable to him. In this part of the lecture, you will learn what this question and answer form is. The question-answer format uses is called an "elenchos". It is pronounced "el-en-kos", as though you were saying: "L-N-kos". The Greek word means refutation, cross-examination, or test. 3.7 The structure of an elenchos The structure of an elenchos is as follows: Step 1. Socrates asks a question. Step 2. The interlocutor answers. Step 3. Socrates finds some problem with the answer. Step 4. The interlocutor revises his first answer and offers a second answer. Step 5. Socrates finds some problem with the answer. and so on and so on….. Step 6. Finally, the examination ends in a stalemate. The interlocutor is at a loss as to what to say. Each of his answers has been refuted. No solution is found, no suitable answer given. Sometimes, as in the Euthyphro, the interlocutor leaves, weary and numb. Other times, the interlocutor gets angry. Usually Socrates expresses his willingness to continue searching for an answer. Often, before he can do so, the interlocutor "escapes" or says he must go. Sometimes the entire dialogue may be considered an elenchos; sometimes we analyze the dialogue as though it comprised several elenchi (pronounced "el-en-key"), that's the plural form of elenchos. Here is another way to consider the structure of an elenchos. 1. Suppose 'p' (the interlocutor's first answer) 2. Statement 'q' (premise #1) 3. Statement 'r' (premise #2 ) 4. Statement '~p' [~p is a conclusion derived from (1), (2) and (3)] 5. Thus, we have p and ~p. This should look familiar. It's the argument I used before to illustrate a contradiction. Most often, the interlocutor realizes that his first answer, 'p', resulted in a contradiction and he rejects 'p' and starts over completely or modifies p, hoping that the statement will be an appropriate answer. Next, what is a Socratic question and what makes a good Socratic answer. 3.8. Socratic definitions, Platonic Forms and the Ideas 3.8.1 Socratic questions and the search for suitable answers

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.7

You know the structure of an elenchos. Now let's take a closer look at its initial component: Socrates' question. Socrates' questions typically have the following form: What is X? (I'll use 'X' as a placeholder for any subject matter) Typically questions are: What is piety? (Euthyphro) What is justice? (The Republic) What is courage? (Laches = "lah-keys" or "lay-keys"). In asking these questions, Socrates is asking for a definition of X. So, when he asks Euthyphro what "pious" is, i.e., what "piety" is, he's asking Euthyphro give the definition of "piety". 3.8.2 Socratic definitions A Socratic definition must give a definition or account of X such that it applies to every case, instance, or situation involving X. He is seeking what we call a universal definition of X. An inadequate definition is a definition that does not give an account of X that applies to all things that are X. Here is an example. Suppose you all are from the Mars. Socrates and I are showing you the lovely sights and sounds of San Francisco, and we're standing at the corner of 19th and Holloway. You ask me: "What is a car?" For us, you've just asked for a definition of "car". What if I replied to your question by answering: Prof. Pam: "Oh, that's easy. A car is that Hummer. A car is this Lexus or that Camry. A car is that Hyundai. A car is this Ferrari. Socrates: Excuse me!? That's not right. What you're giving are ________ of cars, not a definition of "car". Fill in the blank. What do you have? Right. "Examples." Even though each of the above is a car, there are others things that are cars that aren't like the things you've named. For instance, all the above have four wheels; some cars have three wheels. What I've given our space alien friend are examples of cars, I certainly have not defined the universal concept of "car". Typically, the first answer Socrates' interlocutor gives is just this: an example of the thing about which Socrates is asking. This is what Euthyphro does, isn't it? He gives the first answer at 5e. The first definition is at 7a and the second definition appears at 9e. Technically, we can't call Euthyphro's answer at 5e the "first definition" he gives, because he hasn't given a Socratic definition yet. Note that sometimes Socrates actually gives the definition, but he does so on behalf of the interlocutor. For example, at 9d, Socrates is the one who initially states the next definition; Euthyphro will agree with what Socrates says as being something to which Euthyphro fully believes represents his (Euthyphro's) position. 3.9 Forms and Ideas In asking the question "What is X?", Socrates is really asking about the universal or common essence that belongs to everything falling under the concept of X. Plato believed that this "essence" was the eternal pattern or model of X. He called these patterns "Ideas" or "Forms". The

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.8

universal essence of X is the Form or Idea of X. Forms are timeless, perfect, eternal, unchanging things. The Greek for Form or Idea is "eidos", pronounced "a-Dos" as in "the letter 'A' and the computer operating system 'DOS'. We'll use the words 'Form' or 'Idea' interchangeably. So something is what it is because it "participates" in a Form. [What exactly Plato means by participation, and how this actually works, is a matter of debate.] Even an idea (small 'i') of something you have "in your head", is possible only because of the eternal Idea (capital 'I") of that thing. As you can see, Form and Idea (capital letters) are technical, philosophical terms. They both are philosophical notions developed by Plato. I caution you not to depend on a "regular" dictionary for the definition of philosophical terms. There are plenty of inexpensive dictionaries of Philosophy in the bookstore you may purchase. You also can utilize the philosophical dictionaries that are online for free. Go to LINKS and check them out. The illustration below illustrates the distinction Plato draws between the Forms and the items that participate in the Forms. These are often called "particulars". Particulars changes; Forms don't. Something that has the shape of a rectangle will fall apart, a drawing of a rectangle can be erased or destroyed. Either of these can even be changed into something completely different. The Form of Rectangle, however, never, ever changes. It is permanent and eternal. Plato believes that there is a tremendous difference between the two realms: the realm of the Forms and the realm of "appearance", as he called it. Why "appearance"? There is only one real rectangle and that's the Form of Rectangle or RECTANGLE. You will learn a lot more about the Forms later. But for now, let's get this basic distinctions clear. So, we have the Form of RECTANGLE and instances of rectangles. You might want to visualize it this way.

PHIL 101 Prof. Hood

Lecture 3 Spring 2007, p.9

Let the red rectangle be the Form RECTANGLE. The blue, green, and purple rectangles are instances of the Form of RECTANGLE. Each rectangle participates in the Form of RECTANGLE, but they are not the "essence of RECTANGLE". Summary: In this lecture you learned some of Plato's basic metaphysical and epistemological views and you learned how Socrates examines his interlocutors. You learned what are the six main stages of an elenchos. You discovered what sort of question it is that Socrates asks, as well as what sort of answer he expects from his interlocutor. Last, in this lecture you also learned a bit about the role Plato's Forms or Ideas play in a Socratic elenchos. Next time, we will take a closer look at some of the arguments that arise in the Euthyphro. We also will take a philosophical look at the big "M" word: Morality.