Introduction to the 'Study Of Plato'

PART 1 OF THE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF PLATO 

Plato is a pivotal figure in the foundation of western philosophy. He was among the first thinkers or could be called as “The first Western thinker to create a comprehensive body of work addressing a vast array of topics that remain relevant in contemporary philosophical discussions” in short, the guy who made ‘Philosophy’, a discipline which includes metaphysics, epistemology, ethics (philosophical trio) politics, language, art, religion even love, mathematics and science. In this way, he can be seen as the originator of philosophy (as mentioned above) as a distinct field of study, i.e. Discipline. While his predecessors and contemporaries had explored these topics, he uniquely unified them by providing a cohesive and easy to understand analysis.

Plato

Plato views philosophy as a discipline that employs a specific intellectual approach which asserts its crucial role in human existence and society. By questioning the assumptions that other fields often accept without doubt, philosophy offers genuine insights which are somewhat similar to that of Hegel’s dialectics which undermines that conclusive statement which lacks the antithetic opinion i.e. the negative part of the original argument. To summarise, philosophy as per Plato, is that which questions the answers (those statements which are accepted without doubt) by rather answering the questions (which was done by the Presocratics). This as per Plato uncovers a novel realm of knowledge that cannot be perceived through the senses, forming a structured system of truths that often challenge common perceptions. This pursuit of understanding is transformative for both personal lives and societal organisation, a trait which one can find in Plato’s dialogues ubiquitously.

    Philosophy is the mother of all sciences, and still it stands as an independent discipline, not merely a tool for other fields, authorities, or beliefs; instead, it holds the distinction of addressing the most vital aspects of human existence, suggesting that all other activities should be secondary to it. This idea of philosophy, along with the significant philosophical theories that back it, has been controversial since its dawn. While various forms of Platonism have flourished over time, there has always been significant opposition to Plato’s remarkably ambitious view of the discipline. Because of this, he can be regarded not only as the founder of philosophy but also as the most debated figure in its history. One cannot claim that philosophy should curb its ambitions without struggling with the boundless aspirations that led to its creation and justifying why these aspirations—whether all or some—are misguided or unattainable. If we must step back from his vision of an all-encompassing understanding that transforms both our lives and society, we need to determine an alternative intellectual goal to pursue. Hence, Plato serves as a crucial case study and benchmark: our understanding of what philosophy ought to be (and whether it should even exist) must be shaped in relation to or in contrast with the alternatives presented by its historical evolution. Consequently, we must consider whether the ambitions of philosophy's founder are both worthy and achievable. 

    Plato is credited with founding philosophy as a cohesive cum extensive discipline, but he certainly did not create it in isolation. To grasp the origins of his ideas, it’s essential to consider the intellectual climate of his time. The aetatis ingenium (the intellect of the age) of Plato. His perspectives on the political changes in Athens and Sparta, along with his responses to the scientific, speculative, and poetic developments of the fifth and fourth centuries, significantly influenced his philosophical evolution. Movements such as the sophists, the Pythagorean mathematical theories, the concept of constant change proposed by Heraclitus and Cratylus, and Parmenides' notion of an unchanging singular existence all contributed to Plato’s thought.

Explanatory: We do not possess enough reliable material to construct a proper biography of Plato, and its not because of little material but unauthenticity of the materials. In his own dialogues, Plato barely mentions himself, offering only the briefest of personal references. The ancient biographies of him that do exist are deeply colored by legend, hearsay, and can be outwright called fiction. Even the Seventh Letter (The incongruity of several claims in the Seventh Letter (about philosophy, politics, and history) with the dialogues constitutes a strong (though not conclusive) case for rejecting the letter. But even if it is spurious, it was probably written by someone who knew Plato well and who wanted his forgery to be undetected; hence many of the more straightforward and (for contemporaries) easily verifiable historical claims may be accurate. But we should not assume that the author must be telling the truth about Plato’s motives, attitudes, or aims on political or philosophical questions). Which presents itself as autobiographical, is widely believed by scholars to be inauthentic. Fortunately, we have some solid insights into Plato’s intellectual development thanks to Aristotle, who was both a student of Plato and a sharp observer of philosophical traditions.Aristotle informs us that Plato was initially influenced by Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, before coming under the influence of Socrates. This detail is unlikely to have come solely from reading Plato’s own works—particularly since Cratylus is not portrayed favorably in Plato’s dialogue that bears his name and It’s more plausible that Aristotle had access to independent sources or oral traditions. Given Aristotle’s proximity to Plato and the intellectual world of that time, his account carries significant weight.From Aristotle’s account, it becomes clear that Plato’s philosophical orientation was shaped by two major strands of Greek thought. On one side were the earlier philosophers known as the "naturalists" or “pre-Socratics,” who were concerned with understanding the physical universe—figures like Heraclitus and Parmenides etc. On the other side stood Socrates and his followers, who redirected philosophy toward ethical, political, and human questions. Plato inherited and synthesized both streams, combining metaphysical inquiry with a deep concern for human life and morality.So, when Plato looked out upon the philosophical landscape of his time, he saw a rich tradition of thinkers exploring the natural world, alongside a newer wave of thought that focused on human behavior, society, and justice. His genius lay in fusing these traditions—developing a philosophy that addressed not only what is real and how we can know it, but also how we ought to live. This synthesis became the foundation for much of Western philosophy to come.....End of explanatory note.

 The most significant and evident influence came from Socrates, who, despite leaving no written works, had such a compelling and unignorable personality with such profound ideas that those who met him could not help but be affected. Socrates believed that philosophy involved engaging in challenging discussions about how to live one’s life. His thought-provoking ideas made him a target, leading to his trial and condemnation for not recognizing the city's gods, introducing new deities, and corrupting the youth which ultimately took his life. While Socrates was alive, Plato was among the many young individuals captivated by him. Socrates' impact was so profound that he became a central character in many of Plato's works, most of which were penned after Socrates' execution in 399 B.C. Almost all of Plato's writings are in the form of dialogues, where Socrates often plays a prominent role. Plato does not insert himself into these discussions; instead, it is frequently the character named "Socrates" who articulates philosophical ideas. This prompts readers to wonder how one can differentiate between Socratic and Platonic philosophy, given that they often express similar thoughts, with Socrates speaking and Plato writing. Could we argue that it was Socrates, just as much as Plato, who laid the groundwork for philosophy? We could not, for Plato’s works themselves provide us with good evidence that Socrates focused his investigative skills on one question only – How should one live one’s life? – and was not similarly preoccupied with the broader range of issues that absorbed their author. We have in Plato’s Apology an account of the speech Socrates gave in his defense, and he says here that although his whole life has been devoted to the discussion of virtue, he has, despite his best efforts, not been able to acquire any wisdom about it – except for the wisdom that consists in knowing that he does not know. Knowledge of such matters, Socrates thinks, is possessed by the gods alone; the best we humans can do is to imitate his own example and recognize the severe limitations in our moral understanding. This profession of ignorance is a feature of several other Platonic dialogues For example, in the Charmides and the Euthyphro, Socrates searches for an understanding of virtue and morality, but each dialogue ends with a confession that such understanding still eludes him and he understands nothing about it. By contrast, when we turn to the Republic, we find the interlocutor called “Socrates” giving definitions of justice, courage, temperance, and wisdom; and in addition he puts forward an ambitious program of study, ranging over arithmetic, geometry, harmonics, and astronomy, that will take us away from the unreal world of sensible objects and eventually culminate in understanding the Form of the Good and the unification of all branches of knowledge. Such contradictions are prominent.

    How can then Socrates be so contradictory, being both a seeker who claims ignorance on the very topic that captivates him—the human good—and simultaneously (in the Republic and other works) a self-assured theorist who elaborates extensively on morality, knowledge, reality, politics, and the human soul? A widely accepted explanation among many scholars is likewise: 

In the Apology and various other texts that explore ethical definitions but show little interest in mathematics and lack metaphysical inquiries, we find a depiction of the historical Socrates; however, as Plato progressed in his philosophical journey, he continued to feature Socrates as the main character in his dialogues, even though this more developed "Socrates" presents ideas far exceeding those of the actual philosopher. This interpretation aligns with Aristotle's differentiation between the true Socrates and the Socrates portrayed as a spokesperson for Plato; the former, he states, admitted ignorance and questioned ethical issues without delving into "the whole of nature"; whereas he does not attribute such constraints to the latter, instead viewing him as a thinker who contemplated various topics and became completely confused when he introduced a realm of independently existing Forms while placing the Form of the Good at the center of ethical theory. Clearly, Aristotle interprets the Republic as an exposition of Plato's philosophy rather than Socrates'.

Thus, we can infer that for an extended period, Plato chose to retain "Socrates" as the name of his primary interlocutor to highlight the continuity between himself and his mentor. Socrates imparted to Plato the essential notion that finding the singular unifying element in our varied uses of moral language is crucial to our well-being. Additionally, Plato inherited from Socrates the approach of uncovering truth by rigorously interrogating our beliefs through the systematic examination by others. When Plato applied that method to achieve the insights that Socrates also aimed to discover, he honored his mentor by allowing him to persist in his role as the main conversational partner.

The differentiation between the philosophies of Socrates and Plato has been further supported by studies of Plato's stylistic writing since the nineteenth century. A general agreement has developed, allowing us to identify many of Plato's works with specific periods of his life. Thus, through these stylistic analyses, and Aristotle's distinction between Socrates and Plato, it is common to divide Plato's writings into three periods: early, middle, and late.

• The early dialogues, often called Socratic dialogues, show deep influence from Socrates and include works that attempt to define moral concepts, such as the Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Ion, and Protagoras and several more (Here, only some of these which are the most popular among the general readers are mentioned as not to overwhelm the reader with names). These are listed alphabetically, as there is significant disagreement among scholars regarding their order.

• Other works, like Euthydemus and Republic Book I and several others (again refraining to mention them as is stated above), resemble early dialogues but stylistically align more closely with the middle dialogues, suggesting they were written after the earliest of the early group. Although these works often depict Socrates as asking questions without providing answers(except in the Republic and that too in the latter books of it), it would be misleading to think of him as merely a negative thinker without his own beliefs. Rather, he passionately asserts several ideas that contradict contemporary views, such as the belief that true well-being comes not from wealth or fame but from Virtue; that a good person can withstand misfortune; that possessing virtues means you have intellectual expertise in a certain area; that this expertise is attained through thorough exploration of what virtues are; and that an unexamined life is not worth living.

While Plato accepted these ideas in his early works influenced by Socrates, he later modified them significantly. For example, a key divergence in his thinking is his view that Socrates neglected the nonrational aspects of human motivation; he argues in the Republic that training in virtue involves appealing to reason as well as educating emotions and appetites, rather than being solely an intellectual endeavor as Socrates believed. 

Though Plato came to disagree with some of his teacher’s views, the most significant distinction between them lies in the breadth of their intellectual pursuits. Socrates focused solely on ethical inquiries, while Plato explored a much broader range of topics. This shift becomes evident in the Meno, where the Socratic character begins with the typical question "What is virtue?" and struggles to find an answer but soon confronts a novel question about the validity of his inquiry method, challenging how one can progress from ignorance to knowledge. The Socratic figure addresses this by proposing a radical theory of knowledge that states the human soul has the innate ability to recollect knowledge from previous existences. He demonstrates this theory by showing that a slave can learn a significant geometrical concept if guided with the right questions. This introduction of the doctrine of recollection is believed to indicate that the Socrates of this particular dialogue is venturing into areas not explored by the historical Socrates, which were later developed by Plato in his middle period. This shift is highlighted by the selection of a geometrical learning experiment to support the theory of recollection, as Plato's strong interest in mathematics becomes apparent in his middle and late dialogues, but is not yet visible in his early works.

    

    The specific Greek words that Plato frequently employs to refer to the new type of object he identified – eidos and idea – are typically translated as “Form” and “Idea,” although the latter term should be used with care, since he clearly believes that these entities are not mere thoughts or creations of a mind; they are inherently uncreated, and their existence does not rely on being perceived or contemplated. He considers these to be the objects we seek to comprehend when we pose the kinds of questions Socrates asked, thus seeing his own philosophy as aligned with that of Socrates. While Socrates inquired about questions such as What is virtue? – and, according to Aristotle, was the first to engage in this kind of investigation – he showed no inclination toward further second-order inquiries regarding the subjects of his questions: Does what we pursue exist independently of human beings? Is it detectable through our senses? Can it undergo change or vanish? How is it possible for us to acquire knowledge about it? What is its connection to actions and individuals considered virtuous yet not identical to the essence of virtue? How are these objects of thought interconnected?

  

  Another significant thing to be understood and observed before we proceed towards further explication for the afore mentioned questions is that Plato uses the term dialektike (dialectic) to describe the method he considers essential to philosophy. For him, a true philosopher must study and master this discipline of dialectics. The key passages explaining dialectic method prescribed by him appears in several excerpts in the dialogue Republic, where Plato presents it as the highest form of intellectual inquiry, capable of grasping ultimate truths. The word itself comes from the Greek word dialegesthai, meaning “to engage in a conversation”, which reflects it’s roots in the meaning as a “Reasoned discussion”. A dialectician then , is skilled in questioning and defending ideas through structured dialogues and refined arguments by testing them against criticisms. The afore mentioned idea can be seen in the dialogue of Republic Book 7 from 534b to 534d (the ‘Stephanus numbers’ indicates the standard way to cite Plato’s dialogues).

    Additional insights into dialectics appear in other dialogues such as Phaedrus and Philibus , they expand on it’s method proving how the dialectics classifies and analyses concepts to reach deeper understanding. While Plato equates philosophy with dialectics, Aristotle disagrees, distinguishing them in metaphysics. But Aristotle, not being the central idea of the essay does not require for us to further probe into the matter.

    Coming back to the questions, Plato’s endeavour to respond to these questions by asserting the existence of a distinct realm of abstract objects referred to as “Forms” and examining their unique properties is commonly known as his theory of Forms; however, this terminology should not lead us to believe that after composing the early dialogues he quickly established a rigid system that provided clear and definite answers to all the significant questions regarding the Forms. In fact, it is more sensible to view him as evolving and perhaps even revising the theory as he continues to investigate the nature of these entities. For instance, in the Phaedo, Plato does not attempt to specify which Forms exist; he clearly acknowledges the existence of Forms for Equality, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, and Piety, but does not clarify how to determine what else should be included on this list. By the time he composes the Republic (a middle dialogue), he offers a broad, yet vague, response: When a name is ascribed to many different things, a corresponding Form exists for that name. Furthermore, he proposes that Forms correspond not only to moral and mathematical properties but also to everyday objects (such as beds). Does this imply that whenever we create a term and apply it to multiple objects, we must assume a corresponding Form, even when there is no valid basis for coining the new term and classifying the objects under it? In the Statesman (a dialogue from his later works), Plato clarifies that he believes there are no Forms linked to names lacking a justified categorization of reality into groups. For instance, he states that it is arbitrary to classify the world's peoples into two categories – Greeks and non-Greeks – because there is nothing that unifies the latter into a legitimate whole. Therefore, there is no Form corresponding to “barbarian,” despite the Greek term designating anyone who is not Greek has been long-established and familiar. Thus, we can observe some development in Plato’s exposition of the theory of Forms: Initially, he refrains from defining their scope; then he provides a general outline of their range; and ultimately, he refines or adjusts his criteria.

"Part 2 will come after some days"