P L AT O ’ S V I S I O N O F T H E H U M A N

PHILOSOPHY 224

PLATO (428-347 BCE)

• Plato was from an old aristocratic family in Athens. Many of the important people of his time appear as characters in his dialogues.

• As a young man, Plato was greatly interested in philosophy and politics. He was a friend and companion of Socrates. After the death of Socrates, he fled Athens.

• Upon returning to Athens around 385 BCE, he founded his school, the Academy, which many people call the first university. It lasted until 529 ACE. He taught at the academy, with a few interruptions, until his death.

PLATO’S WORK

•Plato’s philosophical project is available to us primarily through a series of dialogues.

•The dialogues pose us a particular problem of interpretation. • They are very tightly constructed dramatic

presentations of various philosophical issues.• Though the philosophical content is at the heart of

these dialogues, it is not a simple matter to separate the dramatic elements from the philosophical.

• Actually, we might not even want to, as Plato himself seems to suggest that the dramatic form is important to the content.

SOCRATES (470-399 BC)

• Like many other characters in Plato’s dialogues, Socrates was a real person. We know some things about him, because he was a relatively prominent Athenian. He came from a middle class background. He was usually described as a robust, though unattractive man. He was born at the time of the peak of Athenian power and was an adult at the time of the Peloponnesian war, in which he served with distinction.

SOCRATES’S PHILOSOPHY

• We know much less about his thinking because he left no writings and it is therefore difficult to discern his actual philosophical positions.

• There are a few characteristics of what Socrates was all about upon which there is general agreement.• Socrates was primarily concerned with ethical matters.• Socrates searched for universal definitions— “What is X?”• Socrates’ method was the elenchus. A thesis is extracted from an

interlocutor, further beliefs are elicited, these beliefs are shown to be inconsistent with the original thesis.

• Socrates’ used irony (the use of a word to express something other than the literal meaning )as a rhetorical strategy. Irony provided the opportunities for: humor, mockery and posing riddles (and perhaps suggesting conclusions).

THE REPUBLIC

• The Republic is generally regarded as Plato’s masterwork.• It’s a dialogue devoted to the question: What is

Dikaiosune?• Dikaiosune is a complicated Greek word. It is usually translated as

‘justice,’ but probably means something closer to ‘the proper way to live one’s life.’ The translation in the book translates it as ‘morality.’

• In the dialogue, Socrates’s two interlocutors (Glaucon and Adiemantus) have asked Socrates to accomplish two things:• Provide an account of human nature which makes clear why

Dikaiosune suits us;• Explain how we can create a person of Dikaiosune (education) and

demonstrate that their life is the best life.

FROM THE MACROCOSM TO THE MICROCOSM

• In response to the question about education, Plato suggests an interesting argument from analogy. Since justice is a feature of cities as well as individuals, let’s try to isolate justice in the larger context. If we can do that, then we can apply it to the smaller context (the human soul).

• In his analysis of the city, he identifies 3 different sorts of citizens, to which belong different, characteristic virtues.

Types Virtues

Ruler Guardian Wisdom

Auxiliary Guardian (police/military)

Courage

Tradesperson Moderation (self-discipline)

SO WHERE’S JUSTICE?

• Using the virtue of moderation as the clue (in a city, moderation is expressed in a shared commitment to the common order, Plato identifies dikaiosune in the city as the well-orderedness of the city: each sort of person doing what they are best suited for (41).

• S then lists the evidence we have for this claim: 1. this sort of constancy seems to be the condition for the

presence of the other virtues; 2. common understanding of justice as ensuring to each what

is their own is consistent with this idea (42);3. injustice in a city seems to arise when people stray from

their suited place (43).

WHAT ABOUT THE SOUL?

• Now that we’ve seen justice in the city, we need to finish the argument and apply our insight to the human soul.

• We have to determine if the soul has the same structure as the city and if justice in the soul is to be understood like justice in the city—the well-orderedness of the soul—If it (Justice) is the same property (form) in each (44)?

• In connection to the first question, S provides an argument for the partition of the soul, based on the idea that one and the same thing cannot take contradictory positions on the same object, but like a top, which can be considered to be both moving and standing still depending on what element you concentrate on, we can understand the possibility of one composite thing taking opposing positions with regard to the same object

THE SOUL IS A TOP?

• In fact, when we reflect on our minds, we see ourselves taking up such opposing positions.

• Plato’s example of thirst leads us to conclude that the soul has at least two parts: rational and the appetitive (desiring soul).

• But what about the spirited part of the soul (the seat of the emotions)? • Initially we must suppose that it could be an aspect of one of

the other two, but a closer look shows us that this is not the case: 1)not part of the appetites, because we often get angry with ourselves for giving in to them, and our anger can sometimes help us control them (440a—Leontius); 2)small children show anger well before they show rational capacities so can’t be part of the rational soul either (441b).

CONCLUSION

• Therefore, the structure of the city is mirrored in the soul. • Plato goes on to insist that all of the virtues of the

city are mirrored in the soul as well. • Finally, he concludes that a person is just in the

same way that a city is just (48).•  Then, starting at 443c-d (51), Plato offers us a

description of the just soul.

WHAT ABOUT INJUSTICE?

• In large part, the discussion of justice is over, but there are a few loose ends to tie up. In particular, we need to consider what our account has to say about injustice.

• As with a city, an unjust soul is one that is out of balance (444b).

• This in turn permits the drawing of an analogy between justice and health—just as justice=balance soul, health=balanced body. • This allows us to conclude in turn that virtue is a kind of health

(444c).

• This allows us to conclude that the life of a person of Dikaiosune is the best life (445b).

WE STILL NEED TO TALK ABOUT HUMAN NATURE

• The account is, if anything, more complex than the account we get of justice.

• The text doesn’t give us a great deal to work with, but it is one of the most famous sections of the Republic. It’s called the Allegory of the Cave.

• The Allegory is part of Plato’s response to metaphysical and epistemological issue concerning universals like dikaiosune: namely, what sort of things are they and what sort of knowledge is it that we have of them?

• Plato offers three different analogies or allegories to help us understand his answers to these questions. The Allegory of the Cave is the final (and unifying) of these.

PLATONIC METAPHYSICS

• Because of the limitations of the material covered in the text, it’s difficult to discern Plato’s account of the nature of reality there.

• Actually, it’s a challenge in its own right, and there are important disagreements that continue to this day about this issue.

• We can say a few things that are generally accepted.• Plato was a dualist. Reality is composed of two different

metaphysical orders.• The most fundamental order is formal, not physical. The forms

are universal aspects of reality.• Particular things get their being from the forms. The world of

experience is a metaphysically dependent world.

THE ANALOGY OF THE LINE

THE CAVE

THE PRISONERS

• All that a person like those described as being chained in front of the wall could see of themselves, other people, and the puppets would be shadows on the wall. • All that they could have any sensory experience

of would be mediated by the wall (hearing=echo). • The implication is clear: we are like prisoners in

the cave (for the most part, humans live on the bottom part of the line), but there is a way out.

THE ESCAPEE

• What if a prisoner were released? What would her experience be like? • She would be disoriented, her senses painfully struggling to deal with the

increase in illumination/change in object, and her consciousness struggling to process the new experience.

• If someone asked her, she’d likely insist that the familiar shadows were more real than the blurring/buzzing confusion she was currently experiencing.

• Eventually she would orient to her new context and she would grasp the nature of the illusion that she had lived in. Her senses would be capable of distinguishing the faint light of the exit of the cave, and she would likely enough explore it and find her way into the full light of the sun.

• What would her experience be like at this stage? Probably much like when she was first freed (though with more confidence). Eventually she would discover that the sun (Good) is the truth of the whole.

THE PHILOSOPHER

• What do you think the mood of this lucky person would be? How would she evaluate her situation relative to the situation of the people still in the cave? In the face of the gap between the situations, she might be motivated to return to the cave. Why?

• What would the experience of the return be like? She would once again be blind, but this time by darkness (ignorance) rather than light (access to knowledge).• Her former colleagues would doubtless be tempted to blame

her blindness and lack of fit on what she know knows, and thus stigmatize her accomplishment.

• If she kept trying to convince people to accept what she knows to be true, they’d likely end up killing her (like Socrates).

HUMAN NATURE

• So, what does the cave analogy suggest about Plato’s understanding of human nature?

• Reason gives us the capacity to bridge the ontological gap between the formal and material dimensions of reality (the intelligible and visible worlds).

• We are bodies, caught up in the visible world and thus susceptible (like the prisoners) to the trap of recognizing only that which the limited understanding of Doxa makes available.

• But, if we order our soul correctly (if Diakosune rules it) we can be philosophers, and thus recognize the truth of the formal, intelligible world.