-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.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Sunday, November 5, 2017
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.
-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.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
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".
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
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.
-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.
Monday, October 30, 2017
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)
-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)
Sunday, October 29, 2017
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.
-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.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
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?
-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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)