Down to Earth - Aristotle on Substance

-In Raphael's fresco The School of Athens (1511), Aristotle and Plato are featured prominently (among the other famous Greek philosophers). 
   -Plato's hand is pointing up towards the heavens (thought to be a reference to his abstract theory of Forms), whereas Aristotle's hand is facing palm-down towards the ground (thought to be a reference to Aristotle wanting to focus on the "here and now" and a more "scientific" approach to philosophy and logic). 
      -Of course, this is, as always, kind of an oversimplification and popular misconception when comparing these two.
-So, while people sometimes get confused about how much they differ, they definitely have a clear difference of opinion regarding the concept of "substance" (ousia), i.e. that which is.
   -This isn't really a term that's associated with Plato because Plato didn't seem to care very much about using specific terminology and shit because he only cared if the concepts were clear.  However, Aristotle cared very much about terms and definitions and ousia is a term that is central to Aristotle's teachings.
      -According to Plato, the Forms are the only thing that's really real and everything else is an object of opinion.  However, according to Aristotle, the Forms don't exist and that what is truly real are the concrete objects around us.
      -Two of his works that discuss ousia explicity are Categories and Metaphysics. 
-Categories
   -Every "thing" that can be observed by humans can fit into at least one of 10 categories (in order of importance)
      -Ousia (Substance)
         -The most fundamental of the categories; every "thing" falls into this category because something has to exist in order for it to "be"!  THIS is where "being" starts; things are NOT derived from the Forms (like Plato argued).  Objects (in the philosophical sense) are "primary", not derivative.
            -For example, "beauty" comes from beautiful things.  If beautiful things didn't exist, then we wouldn't have a concept of "beauty". 
         -Plato also argued that "true beings" are eternal and unchanging; Aristotle, of course, refutes this by arguing that everything is subject to change and that these changes just correspond to different categories.
            -The nine other different categories are all predicated on the first- ousia.
   -Aristotle argues that if the Forms are truly separate from the things that they're associated with, then Forms can't really have an influence on these things. 
      -Aristotle also attacks the theory of the Forms by pointing out that Plato's implied that the Forms are both universal AND particular, which doesn't really make sense.
         -Aristotle also argues in Ethics that Plato's "goodness" Form doesn't make any sense, either, because there are too many ways that things can be "good"!  There is no one idea of "goodness" that the Form can embody.
-Metaphysics- Aristotle's most complex and difficult work.
   -Unclear as to if this is a collection of some of his other works or that it was intended to be a single, unified work.
   -It envisions an entire field of "science" devoted to ousia.
      -It's worth noting that Aristotle never actually called this concept "metaphysics"; instead, he calls it "first philosophy".
   -Gets into Artistotle's concept of "the soul" (to be explored at a later time).
   -Aristotle thinks that Parmenides has kind of the right idea in terms of ousia ("something can't come from nothing; something can't become nothing" or something like that), but that Parmenides' conclusion ("nothing ever really changes") is wrong. 
      -According to Aristotle, it's obvious that categories change in respect to their primary substance.
         -Everything that changs involves two components- something that changes because of its nature or property ("form"), and something that takes on the change and becomes something different ("matter").
            -For example, a table is constructed from pre-existing matter (wood) and imposing the form of a table upon it.  Therefore, the wood that's been turned into a table is still wood (because it's "matter"), but its been changed into a table ("form").
            -Another example- a baby is born because pre-existing matter was formed in the mother's womb in order to create a new human.  Over time the matter (that is the baby) grows taller, it takes on a new form ("tall").  Thus, just about everything is a composite of matter and form.
               -However, this creates a dilemma- is, for example, Socrates primary, or is it just his matter that's primary?  Or are his forms primary as well?
                  -While it makes sense that just the matter should be primary, Aristotle argues that forms can be primary too.  For example, Aristotle argues that ousia must be "intelligible" and that it is only through forms that ousia can be intelligible. 
                     -Aristotle tries to explore this concept further by saying that what we're looking for when we examine an object is its "essence"- it is something's essence when we're trying to understand what that thing is. 
                        -Aristotle associates essence with form, not matter.
                           -Aristotle explores this idea in great technical detail.

A Principled Stand - Aristotle's Epistemology

-"All men, by nature, desire to know." 
   -Opening line of Aristotle's Metaphysics. 
      -Seems as if Aristotle is suggesting that the quest for knowledge isn't just something exclusive to philosophers- it's something that appeals to everyone.  Of course, just because we want knowledge doesn't mean we always get knowledge.
   -Of course, what exactly is knowledge?
      -This is the core question of epistemology (the study of knowledge).
          -Epistemology is based on the distinction between knowledge and belief (an idea first introduced to us by Plato in works such as the Meno and Theaetetus, and in the Republic it seems as if Plato is arguing that the average joe has "beliefs", whereas philosophers (who also happen to be elites) use dialectic to attain "knowledge".
-Like Plato, Aristotle sees the attainment of knowledge as something that is both difficult to achieve and reserved for elites (we learn about this in Aristotle's work Posterior Analytics (the "posterior" part of the title is presumably meant to contrast with Aristotle's other work Prior Analytics, which discusses logic and the rules governing valid arguments), which discusses which valid arguments lead to the attainment of knowledge).
   -Posterior Analytics seems to be the closest we can get to an Aristotelian treatise on the subject of epistemology. 
      -What are the conditions in which someone can be sure that they actually "know" something?
         -Aristotle says that you can be sure that you know something when you can demonstrate it. 
            -Aristotle covers what valid arguments are and how to make them in Prior Analytics, which is why that work is such an essential accompaniment to Posterior Analytics; you demonstrate knowledge by making valid arguments (of which satisfy Aristotle's criteria)!
               -So, what are the criteria for a valid argument?
                  -According to Aristotle, a valid argument first needs to have two premises that have one term in common.  When put together, these two premises yield a conclusion (this is called a "syllogism" (Greek: "syllogismos" ("conclusion, inference")) by Aristotle).  Thus, demonstrations of knowledge are syllogisms. 
                     -These syllogisms should be explanatory.  For example: "Giraffes are land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees.  Land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees have long necks.  Therefore, giraffes have long necks."  As we can see, the middle term ("Land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees have long necks") links the first premise and the conclusion. 
                     -Additionally, in order to understand something we need to have an explanation for a whole class of things, not just one particular thing.  In other words, this understanding must be universal.  For example, if we say that Hiawatha, a giraffe, has a long neck because she eats leaves off of tall trees, that doesn't really count as knowledge or understanding according to Aristotle.  Instead, if we say that Hiawatha has a long neck because she is a giraffe, then THAT is understanding because we know that having long necks is a universal characteristic of all giraffes.
                        -Of course, this gets into what Aristotle calls "accidental" and "essential" features.
                           -"Essential" features are characteristics that something has as a result of its nature.  These features are shared with all other members of that thing's kind.
                           -"Accidental" features are characteristics that something has, but not as a result of its nature. 
                   -Furthermore, premises of a demonstrative argument MUST mention essential (see above) features of the things that they are explaining. 
                      -It is worth noting that based on this logic, Aristotle is implying that there is no knowledge or understanding of accidental features.   This is interesting because although Aristotle set the groundwork for modern-day science, "accidental features" are extremely relevant for scientists in terms of understanding something.
                         -Aristotle actually used the word "epistēmē" for a bunch of different subjects such as math, science, metaphysics, etc., as for him they were all branches of knowledge as a whole.
      -Thus, with Posterior Analytics Aristotle sets out to create a sort of scientific "program".
         -According to Posterior Analytics, science allows us to acquire explanations for things.  These explanations are universal and are based on "essential" (as opposed to "accidental") features.
      -One interesting point Aristotle makes in Posterior Analytics is that we can only "know" something if it is true. Thus, he concludes that if the things I know can't be false, then they are NECESSARILY true; when he demonstrates something, not only will he have premises and a conclusion which address with universal and essential features of things, but he will also have premises and conclusions that are ALWAYS guaranteed to be true.
         -For example, we can know that giraffes have long necks because having a long neck is an essential feature of a giraffe; giraffes must NECESSARILY have necks in order for them to be giraffes.  A giraffe MUST have a long neck in order for it to be a giraffe.
            -Of course, this can be challenged by modern science because we now know about evolution and shit like that.  According to Aristotle's logic, the idea that giraffes at some point in time didn't exist and that at some point in the future they will most likely be extinct is impossible because all knowledge is based on eternal truths.  If giraffes didn't exist at some point in the past then how could we have any knowledge of them in the present?
               -A modern day update of this would probably say something along the lines of- "IF something is a giraffe, then it has a long neck."
      -Aristotle also writes that the knowledge gained from a conclusion can only be as good as the knowledge of the premise(s) used to support it. 
         -For example, let's use the demonstration that giraffes have long necks (conclusion) because they eat leaves off of tall trees (premise).  However, if we don't know why giraffes eat leaves off of all trees, then it seems like we don't know why giraffes have long necks, either.
            -Thus, our understanding of the conclusion can only be as good as our understanding of the premise(s).
               -Of course, this can become a huge problem- if a demonstration's premises also involve a demonstration, then we could just do this forever in a never-ending loop of demonstrations followed by premises which require demonstrations.
                  -Aristotle addresses this problem at the very end of the text by saying that eventually this seemingly never-ending loop must come to an end; however, it must also not be circular.
                     -Aristotle makes the point that every demonstrative argument must ultimately derive from a "first principle", and that our understanding of these first principles must be stronger than our understanding of what we are demonstrating (through these first principles).
                        -This is the beginning of a school of thought that would eventually come to be known as Foundationalism- the idea that all knowledge is grounded upon "fundamental truths.
                           -Of course, these fundamental truths aren't demonstrated (what a cop-out!), but Aristotle argues that everyone already knows these fundamental truths, although he dismisses the argument that we know these fundamental truths BUT are unaware of them (i.e. Plato's "Theory of Recollection").  Instead, Aristotle argues that we know these fundamental truths through repeated experiences based on our senses.
                              -Aristotle expands upon this by using a phalanx as an analogy: as a phalanx turns to fight after retreating for some time, its formation is restored.  Each hoplite that turns to fight may seem like he is having is own individual experience, but when the phalanx snaps back into formation as a whole that is like universal knowledge entering our minds.
                                 -So, is Aristotle an empiricist (believing that all knowledge is based on sense-experience)?  It would be a mistake to say so, as the empiricists were influenced by skepticism.  Aristotle believed that all of our minds were able to perceive the world as it is without any problems. Additionally, Aristotle didn't believe that all of our knowledge comes from sensation, as Aristotle was could still be critical of commonly-held opinions.
                                    -Aristotle wanted to focus on arguing from what already seems plausible, even though it's possible that what may seem plausible can ultimately be proven wrong.

The Philosopher's Toolkit - Aristotle's Logical Works

-Back in Antiquity, "logic" was considered to be a "tool" or "instrument" for philosophy, but not an actual part of philosophy itself.
   -Aristotle's works on logic are referred to as "The Organon" ("The Tool" or "The Instrument").
      -Includes 6 works:
         -"Categories"
         -"On Interpretation"
         -"Prior Analytics"
         -"Posterior Analytics"
         -"Topics"
         -"Sophistical Refutations"
      -Additionally, there are two other surviving works that we have (but are not included in the Organon, although they do involve logic)- "The Rhetoric" and "The Poetics".
      -"Prior Analytics" is the only one that deals with logic in terms of how we would understand it today. 
         -It analyzes the forms of logic separate from their content.  For example, "If every A=B and every B=C, then every A=C."
      -"Categories"- comes from the Greek word "katēgoria" ("blame", "statement", or "accusation"), but Aristotle uses it to mean "predication" (i.e. saying one thing about another thing).
         -Makes points about words that are predicated (e.g. difference between synonyms and homonyms).
            -Also makes a distinction between what is an essential feature of something and what is accidental.  A feature or predicate is essential if it has to do with the nature of the thing being discussed.  For example, it is essential for a giraffe to be a) a giraffe, b) an animal, c) have other features required for membership in the giraffe species.  However, if the giraffe is painted blue, this is characteristic that is "accidental" or "present" in it.  It is also "accidental" if it happens to be sick, especially strong, etc.
               -Therefore, if you can change a feature of something without "destroying" the whole thing, then that feature is "accidental". 
            -The work goers on to provide a list of "categories" (i.e. types of things that can be predicated): substance, quality, quantity, relative, place, time, position, state, action, and being acted upon.
               -It's possible that this is not something new that Aristotle came up with on his own, and is entirely likely that he learned a lot of this stuff at the Academy under Plato.
      -"On Interpretation"- focuses more on the philosophy of language. 
         -Plato explored this in his dialogue "Cratylus" (the theme: do words have significance by nature or convenience?).
         -Aristotle states immediately that words have meaning by conversation, not nature.  However, not only are words symbols of meaning (but are not the meaning in and of themselves), but they also represent a thought in one's own soul.
            -In fact, there is a CHAIN of representations!  If you write down a word, that word represents the spoken word, which represents the thought in your soul.  Therefore, verbal language is more "fundamental" than written languages.  Additionally, the thought in your soul represents whatever thing in the world you are trying to express.
         -However, the main focus of the work is the study of sentences that assert or deny something. 
            -Also makes the distinction that some predications are universal, where others are particular.  Aristotle uses this concept to explore which sentences are opposed to which.
               -A statement is contradictory to another if it is an exact negation of it.
                  -This can be confusing.  For example, the contradictory statement to "All humans are white" is NOT "All humans are not white", but instead "Some humans are not white."  This is important because for every pair of contradictions, one (and ONLY one) can be true.  For example, either there is at least one non-white human, OR all humans are white.  It can't be both; it has to be one or the other. 
            -Aristotle then says that with any pair of contradictory statements, one will be true and the other will be false. 
               -The only problem is- what if we're discussing the future?  If you make a statement about the future and it is indeed true, does that mean that the future is already decided and that everything that happens has happened regardless of any choices we make?
                  -Aristotle's solution to this troubling idea is that any statements about the future are neither true nor false, so with this he makes an exception to his rule about contradictions.
                     -Unfortunately, this isn't a satisfying answer for the reader because what happens when someone accurately predicts the future?  Obviously, this creates some headaches. 
      -"Prior Analytics"- contains information on "logic" in terms of how we would describe it today.
         -Discusses sentences put together into arguments. 
         -In this work Aristotle introduces the concept of the syllogism ("syllogismos").
            -For example, "All mammals are animals.  Some mammals are giraffes.  Therefore, some animals are giraffes."  However, Aristotle uses variables (e.g. "All A are B.  Some B are C.  Therefore, some A are C.
               -This stuff all may seem obvious for us now in the modern-day, but it was a major breakthrough in the ancient world and forms the very basic foundation for logic as we understand it today.
                  -Allowed for Aristotle to state abstract arguments clearly as opposed to getting bogged down in confusing language.
                     -For example, he considers the problem: "All A is B." "No A is B." "Some A is B." "Some A is not B" (to make it easier for us, let's suppose that A=giraffes and B=animals).
                        -Aristotle analyzes these statements and their combinations to find that some of these combos will immediately produce a conclusion.  If this is the case, these syllogisms are "complete".  Others need some argument to produce a conclusion, while others are not productive at all.
                           -This is considered to be one of Aristotle's greatest achievements and sets the stage for 2000+ years of logic (it was only finally challenged in the 19th century by the German philosopher Gottlob Frege)!
                        -Aristotle knows that this is still a rather limited model, so he tries to demonstrate that all productive arguments can be reduced to these syllogisms (which was later refuted by the Stoics).
                        -Also spends a lot of time discussing the fact that the premises and conclusions of an argument can be either possible or necessary. 
                           -For example, "Giraffes are necessarily mammals, and all mammals nurse their young."  Does this mean that giraffes necessarily nurse their young?  Does the necessity transfer from the premises to the conclusion?
                              -Aristotle believes that if a statement is necessarily true it must always be true.  However, he also believed that if something was always true, then it was also necessarily true.
                                -But this doesn't make sense.  For example, Peter Adamson doesn't have a sister and (unless he's mistaken and does SECRETLY have a sister) he will.  However, is it necessarily true that he doesn't have a sister?  That doesn't make sense.

Mr. Know-it-all - Aristotle's Life and Works

-Aristotle (c. 384-322 BC) - Most influential philosopher in the history of Western civilization.
   -Covered and wrote about a wide range of topics; he was arguably the first to do so in a way that covered subjects which were explicitly divided into categories.
-Born in northeast Greece in the ancient city of Stagira (in modern-day Chalkidiki, Central Macedonia).
   -Father was Nicomachus, a physician of Amyntas III, King of Macedonia, and allegedly a descendant of the legendary physician Machaon and the god-hero Asclepius.  Aristotle also eventually had a son named Nicomachu as well.
   -Came to Athens when he was 17; he soon became a student of Plato's.
   -When Plato died in 347 BC, Aristotle traveled with a classmate, Xenocrates, to the court of Hermias of Atorneus (modern-day Dikili, Izmir Province).  Although Hermias was the ruler of the city, he was a former classmate of Aristotle and Xenocrates' and a good friend as well. 
      -After this, he traveled with his buddy (and also former classmate) Theophrastus to the island of Lesbos.
   -Returned to Athens in 335 BC.  It was during this time that he opened his own school- the Lyceum. 
      -Aristotle di this because he was pissed that he had been passed over as head of Plato's Academy (which had been passed on to Xenocrates, instead), so Aristotle opened the Lyceum, a rival school.
         -Allegedly, at the Lyceum the students would walk around while having dialogues, so that's why Aristotle's followers were/are known as "the Peripatetics" (or students/thinkers who belonged to the Peripatetic School), which comes from the Greek word "peripatêtikos", which means "of walking" or "given to walking about".
   -Around 323 BC Aristotle (now an old man) left Athens, relocating to the town of Chalcis on the island of Euboea (in modern-day Central Greece), where he soon died.
      -He left Athens because he either a) wanted to avoid violence against him following the death of of Alexander the Great (whom the Greeks despised since Alexander had conquered all of Greece under the banner of Macedon), as it's possible that the Greeks blamed him for Alexander's success, or b) because he feared that Athens viewed him and his school as a nuisance in the same way that they had viewed Socrates and his followers (which, of course, had resulted in Socrates' executions).
-Aristotle's works- unfortunately, it looks like a bunch of his work has been lost forever.
   -He and his students wrote approximately 160 political works, but only ONE ("The Constitution of Athens") has survived.
   -Apparently, Aristotle wrote two kinds of works:
      -Exoteric writings- unclear as to what these really containted, but contemporary writers wroe that these works were written very stylishly, so it's possible that they were meant to be accessible for a mainstream audience and perhaps even imitated Plato's dialogues.
      -Esoteric writings- we have fragments of these writings; however, "esoteric" is a misnomer in this case, as these writings do not contain "hidden" or "occult" or whatever.  They were just meant to be read by his students and not the general public. 
         -It's entirely possible that these are just his lecture notes, which is why they're kind of unclear or hard to understand.  However, this is kind of unlikely because a lot of this stuff is written in a way that is complete (i.e. they don't seem like notes).  The problem is just that they're very fucking dense.
      -One notable thing about his works is that for a lot of them he divided into systematic subjects that form the basis for how we divide subjects in schools and shit today.
         -Plato had actually kind of done this too, but he wove a lot of these subjects together in his works, so it wasn't quite the same thing.  Also, Aristotle speaks to us in his own voice (as opposed to dialogues like with Plato), and there is little in literary flair or drama.  Aristotle's shit is a methodical investigation into a topic, much like how philosophical explorations are written today.
            -Aristotle does this because of his concept of "dialektikḗ" ("dialectics" AKA the dialectical method).
               -In the case of Aristotle, it could be argued that this just means "the process by which philosophers achieve knowledge").  However, according to Aristotle, a dialectic is just an argument that proceeds from an agreed-upon premise.
                  -An argumentative discussion works like this- a topic is identified, and people try to find a point of agreement as a basis for further arguments.  However, if no point of agreement is found, then no argument is possible.  Arguing without agreed-upon premises isn't a rational debate; it's just posturing or shouting. 
                     -Aristotle tried to formalize the strategies and rules of debate in a work known as "The Topics".  Aristotle calls this practice "dialectic".  He says that the premises we must accept for philosophical discussions are those that are either widely accepted OR are accepted by "the Wise" (earlier philosophical thinkers, poets, etc.).  These premises are labeled by Plato as "endoxa" (essentially, common knowledge or facts).  However, Aristotle doesn't necessarily assume that these endoxa are always true; instead, they are just a good attempt to grasp what is true.  They are true in a way, or true from a certain point of view, but they don't capture the truth in a rigorous or perspicuous fashion.  Aristotle usually compares and continues various endoxa and then tries to find a common ground or compromise.  Essentially, he's trying to come up with a guide for how to be a referee of a Platonic dialogue. 
                        -With this, it could be argued that Aristotle "invented logic" with his study of the dialectic.

Last Judgements - Plato, Poetry, and Myth

-Plato (c 427-347 BC) was quite critical of his contemporary poets, even going so far as to say that certain verses would be censored or banned if they existed in his conceptualized utopian republic.
   -Also said that unless the poets can prove how they're beneficial to society, they'll be kicked out!
   -Plato did, however, reference poets and their works a lot in his writings.
   -Amusingly, his own critiques of poetry and poets could just as easily be applied to philosophers and philosophical literature!
   -Also, even though he was critical of the epic mythical works of Homer and Hesiod, he too composed his own epic myths too (haha)!
      -"Phaedo", "Gorgias", and "The Republic" all contain myths of Plato's own creation.
   -So, what was Plato trying to accomplish exactly if he was being such a hypocrite?
      -Was he trying to negate or criticize other myths as a way of promoting his own?
-He was also really critical of the poets in their style of writing, accusing them of imitation.
   -This "imitation" did not reflect his belief that their descriptions were accurate.  For example, Homer has the gods say or do things that he (Plato) believed was inappropriate for divine beings to behave.  Homer also has someone like Achilles insult the gods, and Plato believed that this instilled in the reader false perceptions about them (the gods). 
      -This is why Plato has Socrates argue in favor of censorship in his ideal utopian city as a way to keep the youth from becoming corrupted.  Gods and heroes should be role models!
         -This has led modern-day critics to argue that "The Republic" leans in favor of totalitarianism!
         -Plato also wrote in favor of censoring music as well, as music was an important component of the theater.  This included the banning of certain musical modes, rhythms, and even instruments, as he believed they inspired unbridled passion, fury, etc.  He also frowned on the theater inducing inappropriate or immoral feelings in the audience.
   -In a similar way of "imitation", Plato was critical of the sophists because they taught persuasion, not knowledge.  Like the sophists, the poets promoted pleasure, but not knowledge.
      -An imitator can reproduce the image or likeness of something without actually having knowledge of its true nature.
         -For example, a painter can paint a picture of a table, but doesn't actually know how to build one.
         -So, couldn't Plato be accused of being an "imitator" himself?  After all, all of his works are dialogues between imitated real-life characters, situations, conversations, etc.
            -Plus, he also has some characters behaving badly, immorally, etc.
            -One argument would  be that Plato is "fighting fire with fire"- his audience is obviously intellectuals, other philosophers, etc.
         -So what about Plato creating his own myths?  Was this hypocritical?
            -Plato's myths are detailed primarily in "Phaedo" and "Gorgias".  Talks a lot about the afterlife, "Hell", etc.
            -Also discussed in "The Republic" is "the Myth of Er".
               -In this story, Er is a dude who is killed in a war, but before he's buried he miraculously wakes up and starts talking about the afterlife.
                  -Er saw two sets of gates, each with an exit and an entrance.  One set of gates led to the heavens, the other led to the underworld.
                     -The virtuous go to paradise, but the assholes are condemned to the underworld for many years.  The worst of the bunch go to the underworld FOREVER!
                  -Eventually, the souls leave through the exits of both the heavens and the underworld, and journey through the cosmos.  The souls then encounter the three fates, who designate the souls' next lives on earth.  Each soul is allowed to choose which life (including animals) they wish to live on earth.  Thus, the gods are not to blame if our own lives suck! 
                     -The moral of the story is that we should study philosophy in this life so we can make a good choice when the time comes to choose the next life.
                   -Critics have raised an important point regarding the Myth of Er- Plato is basically saying that we should be good "or else", which is weird for him.
                      -It seems more in Plato's style to argue that we should be good for the sake of being good, or that it's better or more advantageous to be good from a practical point of view.
                      -An argument against this would be that Plato has already argued the practical reasons for living a good, virtuous life in his other works, so "The Myth of Er" was just an extra thing to prove why it's good to live virtuously. 
                         -In the same way, Plato attacks poets and playwrights not because of the art itself, but because they use their art to perpetuate what he deems to be falsehoods.
-In closing, Plato was a philosopher who combined and covered much- myth, justice, virtue, the cosmos, science, argument, education, etc.
   -It's been said that the entire history of philosophy is jut a series of footnotes to Plato's dialogues.
      -However, according to at least one student of Plato's, there was still room for improvement.  This student would go on to rival Plato's greatness, and is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, if not ALL TIME- Aristotle!

Wings of Desire - Plato's Erotic Dialogues

-Unlike modern times, pederasty with young boys was seen as an important part of Greek society. 
   -Young boys were considered the "beloved", whereas the man was the "lover".
      -It's assumed that physical pleasure and attraction were not necessarily mutual.
      -What was the benefit of being a "beloved"?
         -The lover took it upon himself to teach the beloved about adult society, along with giving the beloved political connections, experience, etc.
            -Because of this, the beloved was expected to resist as a sort of "game" between the lover and the beloved. 
   -Plato (c. 427-347 BC) thought this system was dumb and critiqued it in dialogues such as "Symposium", "Phaedrus", and "Lysis".
      -It's from these dialogues that we get the term "Platonic love" (a loving relationship without a sexual element (eros)). 
        -The concept of eros is addressed primarily in "Symposium" and "Phaedrus".
-"Symposium" takes place at a drinking party (lying down, drinking wine, talking, and listening to music.
   -Usually at these things were "flute girls" too (prostitute entertainers).
   -Everyone is actually hungover from the night before, so it starts out pretty laid back.
      -Eros is discussed in a number of different monologues, by various characters.
         -Best speeches are by Aristophanes (Athenian comedian and playwright) and Socrates.
         -Phaedrus (Athenian aristocrat) describes eros as a god.
         -Pausanius (unclear as to who this dude actually is) describes love as two gods, both called Eros, but are different.
            -One is a higher, "heavenly" love, which brings loyalty to his beloved.
            -The other is a "lower" love that involves only the satisfaction of sexual gratification.
         -Eryximachus (doctor) sees love as a cosmic force which manifests itself in our body's harmony and well-being. 
            -Aristophanes says that originally humans were joined together in pairs.  Some were both male, some both female, and some half-half, but all of them had 8 legs and 2 heads.
               -These beings were super-powerful and ended up challenging the gods, so Zeus got pissed off and split them in half with his thunderbolts and this is why we have sex- we're trying to unite with our other halves. 
                  -Therefore, gay men are more "manly" because they come from a body that was 100% man!  Also, we better respect the gods, or Zeus will split us again!
                  -Aristophanes still makes an interesting point though, even if this is meant to be funny- that sex is about union, about making ourselves "whole" again; alone, we are incomplete.
         -Agathon (poet and host of the party), gives a speech saying Eros is a beautiful god and blah blah.
         -Next is Socrates, who recalls a conversation he had with a woman named Diotima (philosopher and priestess/prophetess) . 
            -Diotima believes that love is a divine being, but rejects the notion that Eros is a straight-up god because eros is a desire for what is beautiful, an if one desires something then by definition they don't have that thing.
               -Therefore, if Eros is a god, then it can't be beautiful and wondrous because he/she/it would embody emptiness and always try to attain things, which doesn't make sense.
             -Diotima also said that love can't be simply a desire for union, because you don't have to desire something just because it is a part of you, you can just desire something because it's "good".  Love, therefore, is about seeking what is beautiful and good.
                 -Thus, it doesn't make sense to just seek out hot people for sex, you must seek seek out the Form of Beauty itself!  Our desire for beauty is a desire to "give birth in the beautiful and transcend our limitations and finitude by seeking immortality."
                    -We produce children as a way to live on after we die.  Unfortunately, this is not actually immortality, just as hot people are not only "beautiful" people, but actually all people are beautiful because of the inherent beauty of souls.
                       -A lover will try to "educate" his beloved in this way.
                     -However, truly seeking beauty is not just finding the beauty in everyone because of their souls, but in seeking beautiful laws in order to educate as many souls as possible.
                        -For example, Solon (Athenian politician) was considered to be an advanced practitioner of "the erotic arts" :D
                           -However, even Solon himself had not yet reached the "peak", which Diotima described as a transcendent experience in which the lover arrives at "the Great Sea of Beauty", achieving immortality by realizing immortal truths (e.g. the nature of beauty itself).
                              -Therefore, true love is love of wisdom- i.e. philosophy!!
   -Next, Alcibiades (Athenian politician and general) arrives, and the party gets crazy! 
      -He ends up making a speech about how awesome Socrates is.
-In the dialogue "Phaedrus", Socrates is walking around in nature when he encounters a beautiful male youth named Phaedrus.
   -They start talking about love and what kind of a lover a beloved should satisfy sexually.
      -The question arises- is it better to have a lover that is truly in love with him (the beloved), or not?
         -Key questions in this dialogue- Is a lover also a friend?  Does love really make a lover provide benefits for his beloved, or does it give him reason to ultimately harm his beloved?
            -Socrates suggests that love gives a reason to harm his beloved since the lover is expected to work until the beloved "gives in".  Therefore, the lover wants his beloved to be weak and dependent, and it's also expected that the beloved will eventually be abandoned once he gets older and hits puberty.  A non-lover is a real friend!That's who the boy should give his body to, not just some horny lover who's on the prowl. 
            -Suddenly, Socrates' "guardian spirit" that keeps him out of trouble appears and Socrates begins to argue the opposite point of view!
               -He starts saying that actually, the beloved SHOULD give himself to a lover because our souls are like a pair of winged horses being steered by a charioteer. 
                  -One horse is vicious and wild; the other horse is noble and obedient.
                  -The charioteer must steer a straight path with these two horses.  If he is successful, he can rise up to the heavens to glimpse the gods (or Forms/Truth), but the shitty horse can cause him to fail and he'll fall to earth and join with an earthly body.
                     -The shitty horse is desire, which defies reason.
                     -The good horse is honor, which can subdue desire.
                     -A fallen soul has forgotten what it has seen in the heavens above.
                   -When we see beauty, our souls are reminded of the beauty we saw in the heavens.  Some souls get lost in the trap of being attracted to physical (i.e. imperfect) beauty, but real beauty can make souls want to grow the wings of their horses again.  Therefore, the boy must not give in to crude physical unions, but instead hold out for a more true, lasting union- philosophy!
-"Lysis" is a dialogue in which Socrates and friends try to define "friendship" (filia).
   -Lysis is, like Phaedrus, another beautiful male youth.
   -Socrates wonders whether friendships spring up between people who are alike or different.
      -Socrates then posits that all friendships are based on a mutual love for something "good".
         -Ultimately, this is seeking out "goodness" with something else- philosophy!

A Likely Story - Plato's Timaeus

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Timaeus" contains theories on the origin of the universe and creation.
-Plato describes the creator of the universe as a "craftsman" or "artisan" ("demiurge" in English, "demiourgos" in Greek).
   -The demiurge works from a set of plans (the Forms) and uses them to create physical imitations (our physical reality).  The physical universe was not created in nothingness, however.  It was created in a receptacle (outer space?) for physical objects.
      -The demiurge can be considered to be the father of the universe, with the receptacle being the mother. 
-The dialogue opens with Socrates talking about a conversation he had with Timaeus (a Pythagorean philosopher and astronomer), Critias (a politician), and Hermocrates (a general) on a previous day, even though most of the dialogue is actually a monologue by Timaeus.
   -In "The Republic" they discuss the parallels between the soul and the city, but in this dialogue they discuss the parallels between the city and the UNIVERSE.
   -Critias tells a story that he heard from the great Athenian statesman Solon, who heard the following story in Egypt:
      -A long time ago, Athens faced an existential threat from an invading army from Atlantis (a nation from beyond the strait of Gibraltar in that Atlantic Ocean).
         -Fun note: Atlantis pops up in "Critias", another Platonic dialogue (and sequel to this one).
      -Anyway, so then Timaeus takes over telling the story because Critias says that it's important at first to hear about the origin of the universe before continuing the conversation (which actually continues in "Critias"). 
         -Timaeus says that his account of the history of the universe is just his opinion since the physical universe is just a constantly changing, evolving place, and truth and facts can only be applied to the eternal reality of the Forms.
            -Anyway, because the demiurge is a force of good, it wanted to create the best universe possible, and wanted for the universe itself to be alive and have a soul and imitate the form of a "living being".
               -Also, the demiurge designed the universe in the shape of a sphere, since a sphere is a "perfect" shape.  The universe was also created from the four basic elements (an idea introduced by Empedocles). 
                  -To be visible you need fire, to be tangible you need earth, and between these two elements you naturally get water and air.
                  -Also, earth is the center of the universe, and the movement of stars creates time.
               -What about humans? 
                  -The demiurge didn't directly create humans, but it created gods who created humans.
               -What about "the receptacle" (space)?
                  -We can't see it, but we know it has to exist because there has to be space for shit to move around in.
               -Thus, the universe is a product not just of divine intellect, but also necessity. 
                  -"The powers that be" do the best they can with the materials they have available. 
                  -Also, everything is made of triangles, which creates solidarity.  These triangles at the "molecular level" are made of cubes.  The elements are triangles, too.
                     -This concept is known as "geometric atomism".
      -Timaeus then goes on to talk about the soul, reason, spirit, and their corresponding organs in the human body.
      -Another question- does the demiurge love humans?
         -Not necessarily; the demiurge is just the designer, and is divine and perfect.  It doesn't have human emotions like love and shit, as these are connected with "needs", which the demiurge doesn't have.
-This dialogue is interesting because it involves empirical observations with mathematical stuff too, which is like mixing basic Pre-Socratic observations with Pythagorean ideas (like the idea that air and water must exist in order to create a proportion that bonds fire and earth together), plus the "divine mind" theory of Anaxagoras and Heraclitus' concept of constant change.

What's in a Name? - Plato's Cratylus

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Cratylus" attempts to tackle the question- "How do words have meaning?"
   -For example, how do seemingly random noises come to have meaning to certain people, but not to others?
-The dialogue is named after Cratylus, a radical student of Heraclitus.
   -Took Heraclitus' concepts even further; for example, he (Cratylus) argued that you can't even stand in the same river ONCE!
   -The other two main characters in the dialogue are Socrates and Hermogenes (a close friend of Socrates' and a fellow philosopher).
   -The story starts with Cratylus and Hermogenes arguing about words and their meaning.
      -Hermogenes says that meaning comes from a person or group that associates a noise with meaning, and over time this spreads and more people associate the noise with meaning and so on.
         -Cratylus, however, argues that words have their meaning NATURALLY.
            -Argues that everything has a "correct" or "true" name.  If you don't use the right word, it's like you haven't even said anything.  His ultimate goal was to prove that you can't say anything false.
            -Socrates challenges this concept by saying that words are just tools, and that we use words to talk about shit but these concepts have a true nature that we lack the insight to truly recognize.  He also rambles on about etymologies and stuff.
               -There's also some possible hints that actually this is kind of a comedy piece and isn't meant to be taken completely seriously, or is just a parody...but this is unclear.
            -Anyway, Socrates does admit that the Greeks use some words that have crept in from foreign languages, and that the modern language has become "corrupted".
               -Hermogenes then asks how the root words got their meanings.
                  -Socrates defaults to an onomatopoeic explanation for this.  However, he then flips and begins to challenge Cratylus.
                     -Words may get their meaning naturally, but maybe this also isn't entirely true.  For example, words become corrupted over time, but still retain the same meaning.  Therefore, Socrates seems to argue that words acquire their meaning through both nature and convention.
                        -Therefore, it IS possible to say something falsely.
                           -Socrates then goes on to say that we use words to communicate our intentions, but words can also give us a hint into their true nature.
                           -Socrates then refutes Heraclitianism (everything is in flux) due to his own Theory of the Forms, which represents eternal stability.

Second Thoughts - Plato's Parmenides and the Forms

-In Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) the dialogue "Parmenides", Parmenides is visiting Athens with his student Zeno of Elea (probably not historically accurate, but who knows).
   -Zeno is reading from his book of paradoxes to an audience, which includes a young Socrates.
      -Socrates is curious about Zeno's paradoxes (which are trying to prove Parmenides' thesis that "everything is one"). 
      -Socrates doesn't agree that everything is one, instead arguing that everything is one AND many SIMULTANEOUSLY.  Because of the Forms of "One" and "Many" (which exclude the inclusion of their opposites ("One" can never be "Many" and vice-versa) which allow for objects to be a part of multiple forms (man is both "one" and "many" because he is "one" person, but has "many" body parts).
         -Parmenides is impressed!  However, he gives Socrates a taste of his own medicine by refuting him through a series of questions:
            -Forms of "Similarity", "Justice", etc.  are all great, but what about "man" or "fire" or "hair"?  Do these have Forms?
               -Socrates is unsure.
            -How do we know what has a Form and what doesn't?  Do man-made objects have Forms?
               -Socrates is doubtful.
            -Is each "large" thing made up of "large" things, so that each piece that makes it up is "large", but if this is so then each piece then is "small" compared to the "large" whole.  Or is the entire "large" thing in each "large" piece, and thus separate from itself, because obviously there are different versions of "large" (like an elephant vs. a mountain).
               -Socrates says that perhaps Forms are present in their participants just like how a day is present for many people simultaneously. 
            -Parmenides then asks if it could be compared to a sail spread out over many people.  However, if the sail is like this, only one part of it is over each person.
               -Socrates is unsure about how to refute this.
      -What happens next in the dialogue is what Aristotle refers to as the "Third Man Argument".
         -Socrates says that a Form is something that we can see that is similar in multiple things- "Large" for all things large. 
            -However, what about the Form "Large" itself?  It must be large, too.  So is there a form for the largeness of "Large"?  That also includes all the things that are large?
               -We will need an infinite number of Forms for "Large" in order for Forms to exist.
                  -Socrates is stumped.  He was really into the idea that Forms were just one thing, not an infinite number of them!  Another problem is that he could have denied that the form "Large" is large, but he doesn't for some reason (probably because he talked about how the Forms can't be opposites).
      -Socrates decides to change tactics.  What if the Forms are just thoughts?
         -Parmenides counters by saying that a thought has to be ABOUT something, we can't just think of "Large" without thinking of something large.
            -Socrates agrees, and switches back to his concept of Forms being "paradigms that exist in nature".
            -The "Third Man Argument": Forms are independent of our minds, separate from the things that partake of them, but also similar to them too.
               -Parmenides counters by focusing on Socrates' claim that the form will be similar to the things that partake in it.  Doesn't that mean that we need the Form "Similarity" for this to be true?  That means that all of these things share a similarity, which will require a second Form to explain the similarity between everything, and so on, forever.
               -Parmenides then says that for Forms to be separate, they might relate to one another, but they can't relate to us or the things around us.
                  -A human master is the master of a human slave, not a master of the form "Slavery".  Also, the Form "Mastery" does not have mastery over the human slave, it can only be master of the Form "Slavery".  Therefore, Forms are disconnected from humans.
                     -This destroys Socrates argument because he wanted the Forms to be a part of our knowledge, but they can't be if they are disconnected because we have to have knowledge ABOUT something. 
-Does this dialogue suggest that Parmenides/Plato/Socrates rejects the Theory of the Forms? 
   -No.  It's just suggestions for how to refine the argument.
   -Parmenides says that there ARE answers to these questions that prove that the theory is true because things DO share similarities. 
      -He also says that with more experience, one could defend the Theory of the Forms more strongly.

Ain't No Sunshine - The Cave Allegory of Plato's Republic

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) Allegory of the Cave is another one of Plato's most important concepts that's found in "The Republic".  

   -Plato introduces the Allegory of the Cave in the dialogue when Socrates begins discussing with Glaucon (Plato's brother) why it is that a philosopher should be the ruler of his ideal city.

      -What Plato means by this, BTW, is a "successful" philosopher, because obviously having someone like Socrates rule a city would be nonsense because nothing would get done, and Socrates knows this.

         -A "successful" philosopher is someone who has successfully achieved gaining "knowledge".  

   -Socrates says that knowledge and belief are "powers", just like sight and hearing.

      -Sight's "objects" are our eyes, our hearing "objects" are our ears, so what are knowledge and belief's "objects"?

         -Knowledge concerns "what is", but belief concerns "what is" as well as "what is not".  

            -This seems to echo what Parmenides was always on about.

            -Socrates says that the objects of knowledge are a completely separate realm of reality- "the Forms".  Forms are separate from physical things in the world around us, as the physical things around us "are" and "are not".  

               -This concept connects with what Heraclitus was talking about as well, with his idea that everything is in a constant state of flux; because everything is constantly changing, everything "is" and "is not".

         -Ignorance only concerns what "is not", because it's false.

   -Anyway, all of this stuff above is the reason for why Socrates says a successful philosopher is the best option for a ruler because while regular people have belief, only a philosopher has KNOWLEDGE (what truly "is").

      -The ruler of a city should rule with perfect justice.  This is only possible if the ruler has knowledge of what justice truly is.  Therefore, the ruler has to be a philosopher because only a philosopher will have the knowledge what justice truly is.

         -Socrates uses a ship as a metaphor/analogy.  

            -The ship's owner is stupid (he represents the citizens).

            -The ship has sailors (representing politicians and sophists) trying to use arguments, drugs, etc. to try and persuade the ship's owner to let them steer the ship.

            -The ship also has one sailor (representing "successful" philosophers) who actually knows how to properly steer the ship because of his knowledge of navigation, stars, etc.

               -Unfortunately, because of his knowledge, everyone just thinks he's useless; this is just like in real society, where the ("successful") philosopher is seen as useless as well.

            -So, based on this ship analogy, what actually qualifies the philosopher to serve as ruler of a city?  What KNOWLEDGE does he have that will make him a good ruler?

               -Socrates says that a ("successful") philosopher will have knowledge of the Form of "Justice", but also of the Form of "Good".

                  -This knowledge is so important because without knowledge of "Good", the philosopher won't know what is good about the other Forms!

                     -The Form of "Good" is like the sun, which makes things visible.  Thus, the Form of "Good" makes the other Forms intelligible.  The sun gives growth and nourishment to everything in nature.  Thus, the Form of "Good" gives being, itself, to our world!  Like a "Super Form".

   -Glaucon becomes confused, so Socrates elaborates.

      -The sun produces sunlight so we can see.  Likewise, the Form of "Good" provides meaning for us among the physical objects of the world.

         -Forms like "Justice" and "Beauty" can't exist without "Good".  "Good" is the key to all the other forms.  Thus, "Good" is at the top of the forms, hierarchically.  

            -Thus, everything we see are imperfect "images" of the Forms.

   -Socrates then continues by telling Glaucon to imagine a line cut into two unequal pieces (A and B), and then the longer piece (A) cut into two unequal pieces again (A1 and A2), and the shorter one (B) into two unequal pieces as well (B1 and B2).

      -Line B represents our physical world.

         -B2 represents the shadows and reflections of objects in our world.  B1 represents the physical objects themselves.

      -Line A represents our knowledge, not just what we can see.

         -A2 represents hypotheses- what we know on the basis of other fundamental principles.

         -A1 represents the truth upon which all other truths are founded.

   -Socrates then starts talking about... a cave.

      -Deep in this cave are a group of prisoners chained up to a wall partition, facing a blank cave wall.  Behind the prisoners is a fire.  Between the fire and the partition, people walk with puppets and objects and hold them up in front of the fire in a way that creates shadows on the cave wall that the prisoners are looking at.  The prisoners can also only hear the echoes of the puppeteers.  Thus, the prisoners are divorced from reality.

         -The prisoners play meaningless games and have meaningless debates about the shadows and what they are and shit.

            -Of course, WE are the prisoners in this cave, and our arguments and debates and bullshit are us talking about the shadows, which are not even the real thing.

               -So, what would happen if a prisoner was somehow freed?  He would be scared to go outside of the cave and into the sunlight!  But if they were DRAGGED into the sunlight, they'd also be scared but would soon realize what reality really is.  

                  -Therefore, the escaped prisoner that's walking around outside and in the sun is the philosopher IRL.  That's why the philosopher seems useless in our shitty society.  Also, the prisoners don't care about the philosopher because he doesn't care about the shadows or their meaningless debates about them.

                      -Thus, it's very unlikely for a philosopher to become a king unless one is born into royalty or something. 

                         -Also, why would a philosopher even want to rule?  Why go back in the cave?  

                            -Socrates answers this by saying that it's not in the philosopher's interest to rule, but also the philosopher isn't selfish and that liberating the other prisoners is the right thing to do.                                             -Of course, it's ironic that those who don't want the power of rulership would actually be the best rulers.

-Two popular misconceptions about The Allegory of the Cave:

   -First- the world of the forms is "Heaven" or some kind of separate reality that we should seek, thus abandoning our physical world.  Instead, these are just two different perceptions of reality.

      -We live our lives with both truth and falsehoods, but the philosopher wants truth only.

   -Second- Plato is endorsing some kind of mysticism.

      -The philosopher will grasp truth AND reality upon exiting the cave.  However, being dragged into the sunlight is meant to be a process through education and reason, and it's not the sun that's the truth, but the things they see outside in the sunlight.  

         -This is more dialectic than mystical because it is using things you know to "liberate" you from "the cave".

Soul and the City - Plato's Political Philosophy

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) "Republic".
   -The founding text of western political philosophy and considered to be Plato's greatest work.
   -Incorporated political philosophy, moral psychology, metaphysics, and aesthetics.
   -Socrates is the narrator. 
   -Socrates is on his way back home and is invited to a party by a dude named Polemarchus.  He's joined by Thrasymachus, a sophist, and others, like Plato's brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus. 
      -They get into a conversation about the nature of justice. 
         -Thrasymachus seems to share a similar view about how injustice is more natural than justice, a view that is also held by Callicles from Plato's Gorgias. 
            -Real "justice" is the strong doing what they can and the weak suffering what they must.  Our concept of justice is a corrupted version because it helps the weak rather than the strong.
               -Socrates of course argues  against this, but the others are not completely satisfied by his refutation.
   -Next, Glaucon argues that we all may agree that our concept of justice is what works best, but perhaps it is not what we truly desire deep down and is against human nature.
      -This is a precursor to Hobbes' "social contract" theory.
      -Glaucon says that if a poor farmer had a magic ring that could turn him invisible, he would use his power to become rich, depose the king, bang the queen, etc; this is something that everyone would do!
         -Socrates' job, then, is to show that justice is the better choice than injustice.
            -Socrates says that we can learn about justice by examining the soul of a citizen in a city. 
               -Before we get to that, though, we need to ask how a city should be run.  One strategy would be to model the city on an already existing prosperous city, or look at shitty cities and NOT do what they do, etc.- Theucydides' strategy.
                  -Socrates says that the best city would be small, comprised of a community of farmers, craftsmen, and traders.  The citizens would all be vegetarian, wear simple clothes, and be chill.
                     -Glaucon objects to this, saying that this doesn't sound like a city of real men, but pigs!!  Socrates replies by saying that if the city wants luxury, it will be required to expand, have a powerful military, occupy additional space, etc.  It would thus need to be divided between laborers and the military, with the military having 100% control and power. 
                         -Because of this, some have argued that Plato/Socrates is condoning totalitarianism, but it's likely that this is not true; Socrates is saying that a city with luxury is "fevered" and not truly healthy.  Thus, this situation is not ideal.
                         -Anyway, how would this military ("guardian") class function?  It would have to be divided into two parts:
                            -The "true guardians"- real rulers of the city (but must possess self-control)
                            -"Auxiliaries" - warriors
                         -It's also important that this city has the right people assigned to the correct roles.
                            -Sexual relations are highly-regulated. 
                            -People are assigned partners through a rigged lottery that designated who they mate with (i.e. eugenics).
                            -The guardians have no private property and share everything, even children, who are taken from their mothers and are raised by the guardian community. 
                            -Men and women have equal roles (surprisingly progressive!).
                            -If all of the stuff above is not implemented correctly, this could lead to the society falling apart.  Therefore, to control everyone is "the noble lie", that each social class has a different metal in the blood, so they can't mix.
                               -Thus, true justice in this city is everyone doing what they are supposed to do.  However, even Socrates (Plato?) argues that this is unsustainable. 
             -So what about justice and the individual?
                -Like the city, Socrates says that there are three aspects of the soul: reason, spirit, and appetite. 
                   -Reason- the pursuit of truth (i.e. guardians)
                   -Spirit- the pursuit of honor (i.e. auxiliaries)
                   -Appetite- the pursuit of food, drinking, and sex (i.e. laborers)
             -So what about corruption of the soul?
                -Socrates tells a couple stories as examples.
                -Socrates also says that the natural order of a city, if not following his ideal model, will experience a series of five regimes: a timocracy, then an oligarchy, then a democracy, then tyranny.
                   -This is also a series going from least bad to worst!
                   -This can perhaps also be seen as a political statement by Plato regarding the Athenian government.
                      -Democracy allows for the freedom of all different lifestyles and behaviors, and Plato/Socrates believes that this is ultimately corrupting.
                         -Also, tyranny from democracy? Where did this conclusion come from?
                            -Plato may have perhaps been influenced by the 30 Tyrants oligarchy which was controlling Athens after the Pelopponesian War.

Famous Last Words - Plato's Phaedo

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Phaedo" dramatizes Socrates' swansong, his final philosophical discussion, and his death.
   -Also introduces the "theory of Forms", arguably Plato's most important doctrine.
-Socrates is on his deathbed and talking to his students/friends/followers.
   -When talking, they are discussing the soul, which they all presume to exist and be immortal.
   -Socrates eventually gets on to demonstrate that the soul is immaterial, invisible, and can survive independent of the body.
      -The soul is immortal, they believe, because it existed before we did.
      -Here we are introduced to the concept of "Forms". 
         -As we grow older when we are children, we "recollect" Forms like "Beauty", "Equal-ness", etc.  Not physical objects, but the nature that objects partake in. 
         -Because the soul can "recollect" these eternal Forms, the soul, too, must be eternal.
         -Another interesting idea is that physical objects can represent Forms, but are never the Forms themselves.
            -For example, two sticks may be equal in length, but they are unequal if compared to a third stick that is not equal in length.  So, they don't capture "Equal-ness" perfectly. 
            -Another example- Helen of Troy: beauty personified, but not beautiful if compared to Aphrodite.  So Helen is beautiful, but not "Beautiful" (the form). 
               -This concept is known as "Compresence of Opposites".
   -Forms also play a role in Plato's metaphysics, not just his epistemology. 
      -For example, Plato believes that the Forms cause things to be so, so like the Form Equal-ness causes things to be equal.  "Beauty" (the Form) causes beauty. 
         -However, the Forms do not cause do not cause other Forms or opposites; "Beauty" doesn't cause "Not Beauty".
         -There are obviously lots of problems with this.  If Forms are immaterial, then what about a form like "Large"?  Some holes in this logic...
            -To Plato's credit, he does have Socrates admit in this dialogue that perhaps he's oversimplifying things.
   -So what about the soul??  Can the soul die?
      -Socrates says that as a proper cause of life, the soul is immune to death.  However, Socrates believes that his soul is to survive and join with divine masters and other good people (how modest!).
      -What if the soul goes to another body? 
         -Socrates believed you get the body you deserve (similar to reincarnation)

I Know Because the Caged Bird Sings - Plato's Theaetetus

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) "Theaetetus" was the first work completely devoted to epistemology (the study of knowledge).
   -The characters are Socrates, Theodorus of Cyrene (a Greek mathematician) and Theaetetus of Athens (a young Greek mathematician who was also super ugly, like Socrates).
      -They are discussing what "knowledge" is (typical).
         -Theaetetus first proposes that knowledge is "perception" (aestheses (where "aesthetic" comes from in English) in Greek), which can mean that our five senses or what we perceive with our mind.  We know something when we perceive it! 
            -This obviously has problems, however, especially if two people perceive something differently.  So, is truth relative?  Is knowledge nothing but perception?
         -Socrates comments that this is a common view ("truth is relative") by the sophist Protagoras (discussed in a previous post) in addition to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus ("everything is in a change of flux") because everything is only what it seems to be to each individual person, something that means that everything is constantly changing and there is no inherent truth to anything. 
            -Protagoras would also argue that something is only "good" if it is good FOR YOU.  WTF does "good" mean otherwise?
         -What about facts?  We can tell, for example, facts like temperature numbers and shit like that.
            -Protagoras would say that these are still just numbers that we are perceiving and this is only true for us and maybe not true for someone else.  How can we really know that there is a truth independent of what we perceive?
               -Socrates counters by pointing out that if that's true, then what is the point of doctors?  If taking medicine that you perceive to be true is good for you, then why would you need to seek a professional opinion?  Or just predicting the future in general?  Also, how can Protagoras' relativism doctrine be true if Socrates perceives it to be false?
                  -According to Protagoras then, Socrates' perception will even be true for Protagoras!  This refutes Protagoras' doctrine. 
                     -However, Protagoras maintains that it's just personal opinion on whether the doctrine is true or not, and that NOTHING is actually really true or false.
                        -Because of this, Theaetetus then proposes that knowledge is having true belief.
                           -Socrates points out that some sophists would argue that it's impossible to say or believe anything false.  EVERYTHING is a matter of persuasion (we also saw this theme arise in the "Euthydemus"). 
      -Eventually, the conversation reaches Meno's Paradox- either we know something, or we don't.  If we know about it, then we won't make a mistake about it thanks to our knowledge, but if we don't know about it then we can't think about it, so we won't be able to make a mistake either.  So we either have perfect knowledge of something, or no knowledge of it at all, and in neither case will we get things wrong.  So it's impossible to believe anything false.
         -Socrates points out (obviously) that there is a middle ground to this.  He compares our perceptions to impressions in wax tablets, and that over time it fades and we make mismatches when comparing.  Therefore, we can "know" something, but also make mistakes.
         -Socrates also makes another analogy- our souls are like an aviary, and everything that we know is like a different bird in the aviary.  New knowledge or info is like another bird.  We now when we make a mistake because we pull out the wrong bird.
            -But then again, later on in the dialogue they find this model faulty.
      -By the end, Theaetetus still believes that knowledge must have something to do with true belief, plus something else. 
         -Modern-day epistemologists are still figuring this one out. 
      -They discuss other stuff too, but I guess it's more complicated and abstract and not so important as the main themes discussed above.

We Don't Need No Education - Plato's Meno

-Can virtue be taught?
   -The conclusion of Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Meno" is that we don't ever actually learn anything because we are actually just recollecting what we already know.
   -In the dialogue Socrates is speaking with the Greek general Meno (AKA Menon) about this.  Socrates says that he can't say if virtue can be taught or not because he doesn't know what "virtue" even is. 
      -Meno tries to provide some definitions, but Socrates shoots them down.  This eventually results in Meno experiencing aporia (puzzlement, confusion, an impasse, etc.). 
         -Meno was actually confident that he could say what virtue is due to his rhetoric training under Gorgias (see last post). 
            -According to Gorgias, each kind of person has their own virtue.  For example, a man's virtue is to be successful in politics, or a woman's virtue is to be successful in looking after the home.
               -Socrates argues, however, that this isn't a definition, it's just a list.  What do all these types of virtues have in common?
      -The dialogue ultimately leads to the question(s)- "Do you have to know what virtue is in order to be able to define it?   And what's a definition, anyway?"
         -Meno says that virtue is achieving things in a "just" way, but Socrates points out that the very concept of "just" is also a virtue (i.e. Meno is basically saying "Virtue is achieving things in a virtuous way")!  So this just goes in circles.
      -Socrates finally explains to Meno the kind of definition he wants.  The model he wants is similar to how you would define a geometric pattern.  Because of this, Meno reaches aporia.
         -This aporia is eventually broken, however, during the part of the dialogue known as "Meno's Paradox".
            -Meno's Paradox basically says that you either know something, or you don't.  If you need to inquire into it's nature or seek a definition, then you don't know it.  However, how can you inquire into something that you don't know?  And how will you know it when you find a proper definition?
               -This paradox is meant to raise questions for the reader: What about partially knowing something?  How much do we need to know until we can say that we know something for real?  And how do we learn anything if we start out not knowing anything about it?
                  -Socrates answers these questions by getting mystical- he says that he heard from religious leaders that our souls are immortal.  They have and always will exist.  Because of this, our souls have already learned everything there is to possibly know.  Therefore, it's impossible for us to know nothing because we actually know everything, we've just forgotten it because we keep on shifting into different stages of existence (i.e. reincarnation?).
                     -Meno isn't convinced because he thinks this is a pretty zany idea.  So, Socrates summons a slave boy who is completely uneducated and tries to get him to do some geometric problem involving calculating the area of the squares.  Obviously, the slave is unable to do it.  However, he then gets the slave to see the correct answer through classic Socratic dialogue (asking leading questions).  This leads Socrates to conclude that the slave knew the answer all along, it just had to be "brought out". 
                        -Variations on this idea of "innate knowledge" still continue today (e.g. Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar).
      -Anyway, one of the central themes of this dialogue is still being debated today- knowledge vs. belief.
         -Also, there's the question of TRUE belief vs. knowledge.  Are they the same thing?  Or is one inferior to the other?
            -Socrates makes an analogy- true beliefs are like magic statues that run away unless they are tied down.  Our true beliefs can be unreliable unless they are "tied down" with reason behind their truth.  This also suggests that those who have true belief can't share it because they have no reason that can prove it. 
      -It also gets brought up that virtue CAN be teachable IF it's a kind of knowledge.
         -If that's true though, where are the teachers of virtue?
         -At this point in the dialogue, a new character enters- the Athenian politician Anytus (also one of the future prosecutors of Socrates!). 
             -Socrates asks Anytus if anyone can teach virtue.  Maybe the sophists?
               -Anytus doesn't think so because he hates the sophists and instead says it's better to just ask the average Athenian citizen or politician about this. 
                  -Socrates counters by pointing out that a lot of great politicians have shitty sons, so if they were such good sources for teaching virtue, then why do their kids suck ass?
                     -Obviously, this just pisses off Anytus, and Socrates doesn't get a good answer. 
      -One takeaway from this dialogue is that perhaps virtuous men instead possess beliefs about what they think is "right" (in terms of acting "virtuously"), instead of the knowledge of what is actually right. 
         -At one point Socrates proposes that these beliefs actually come from the gods, and this is evident because a lot of virtuous people aren't philosophers who would be able to explain themselves via sound reasoning why or how they are virtuous. 
            -Essentially, "true belief + x = knowledge", so the question is, what is x?

Virtue Meets Its Match - Plato's Gorgias

-Gorgias (c. 485-380 BC) was an infamous sophist.
   -Believed that words have an almost irresistible power.
      -It could be argued that his philosophy was perhaps almost proto-Machiavellian.
-In Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Gorgias", Socrates asks what "rhetoric" is.
   -The story:
      -Socrates is meeting with his friend Chaerephon, and they're talking to Gorgias and his sophist bros Polus and Callicles at the latter's house.  Polus and Callicles are kind of noobs, but Gorgias is a badass rhetorician (and an honored guest at Callicles' house).
      -According to Gorgias, rhetoric is an art- the art of speech!  Against a truly effective speaker there is no defense.  If a doctor and rhetorician were to debate over how to cure a patient, an audience would favor the rhetorician.  He could even get away with murder!  Anyway, it's just a power (like using the Force from Star Wars), so it's not good or evil unless you use it for those purposes.  Don't blame the art, blame the student!
         -Socrates points out that Gorgias could use his power to teach people to do good so that they'll do good things.  Gorgias agrees that he can teach people goodness AS WELL AS rhetoric, I guess implying that those who learn rhetoric may still choose to use it for evil anyway?
            -It's unclear that Gorgias actually felt this way IRL, because it seems like he was only really interested in teaching rhetoric only.
      -Anyway, Socrates then argues that rhetoric isn't actually an art at all; it's actually more like a "know-how" or "knack".
      -He argues that a rhetorician can convince you to do something, but that may not be the RIGHT or GOOD thing to do.  Also, a rhetorician can teach you what is actually right or good.
         -Polus then interjects by saying that who cares what is right or wrong if you have absolute power?
            -Socrates argues that this is not true power.  True power is the power to do what is truly "good" for oneself.
               -Polus thinks this is silly.  Who would turn down power over life and death?
                  -Socrates again argues that this isn't real power- "It is better to suffer wrongdoing than to do wrongdoing oneself."  Of course, Polus thinks this is a ludicrous argument.
                     -Socrates counters by getting Polus to agree that justice is a good thing, and that injustice is a bad thing.  Things are are good are good because they are either pleasurable, beneficial, or both.  Justice can be unpleasant sometimes, so therefore it must be beneficial (and, thus, good).  Injustice is bad, so thus it is the opposite of both pleasure and benefit.  However, being an unjust tyrant isn't a bad thing because it is so pleasurable with all of its feasting and orgies.  Therefore, if injustice is a bad thing, it can ONLY be so because it's harmful and not beneficial.  So, VIRTUE is the knowledge of what is good so that you can do good to benefit yourself.  If you don't know what is good for you, you are bound to choose shit that is bad for you.  Thus, the greater power you have, the worse damage you can do to yourself because of your ignorance of virtue!
                        -So, does this mean we should only be virtuous because it's for our own benefit only?  What about altruistic acts / Good Samaritans? This is more difficult to answer.
      -The conversation then takes a turn when Callicles enters the debate.  He accuses Socrates of exploiting Polus and Gorgias' feelings of shame.  He tricked Gorgias into admitting that he could indeed teach his students virtue.  It was also a mistake to agree with Socrates about justice.
         -Polus then argues that justice is actually bad and INJUSTICE is actually GOOD!  "Justice" is just a bunch of rules made up by society to keep the strongest from abusing their power.
            -Nature actually shows that it is the strong who rule ("power") and enjoy their power ("pleasure").  Power and pleasure are good, so therefore injustice is good!
               -Socrates admits that this is actually a very powerful argument (and is also an attack on morality made over 2000 years later by Friedrich Nietzche!).  However, he counters by focusing on this idea that everything we do is to satiate our desire for pleasure (and is thus what life is all about), and he points out that that is actually slavery, not mastery.
                  -He then draws upon the traditional wisdom of Italian/Sicilian wise men or something in "the Allegory of the Jar".  In this allegory, the soul is a jar.  But a hedonist has a jar full of leaks, so that liquid pours out of the jar no matter how much he is pouring in.  Pleasure-seeking is an endless task and becomes increasingly difficult.
                     -Callicles disagrees, saying that the hedonist life is at least continuously fun and new.
                        -Also, eventually Callicles refuses to continue debating with Socrates.
      -The point of this dialogue is also maybe to demonstrate the futility of arguing with someone like a hedonist because they are impossible to refute.