a2 philosophy revision - plato

8/13/2019 A2 Philosophy Revision - Plato

1/14

A2 Philosophy Revision

Platos Republic:Appearance and reality

Platos epistemology ispassive i.e., he believes that there is an objective form of truth that

e can discover! this is opposed to active

"herefore, he believes that there are absolute moral values to hich e should adhere

#iet$sche holds the opposite, perspectivist viepoint: truth is subjective and socially

determined

Plato holds a to%orld vie:

&' "he realm of appearance the e(ternal orld, consisting of objects)particulars, hich are

those of opinion and belief

2' "he intelligible realm reality only accessible through reason! true *noledge +the

orms

The Forms

"he orms cannot be accessed through e(perience, so are a priori

-nualified bearers of predicates they are

simple and cannot be bro*en don into

further parts

/ualified bearers of predicates they are

comple( and can alays be analysed in

terms of parts

0mmutable they do not change over time 1utable they change over time! notably

by decaying

ss

enti

ally

,

the

orms Particulars

3tatic As they do not change over time, it

follos that they do not move either

0n motion

ternal they have alays e(isted and

alays ill e(ist. 3ome commentators

interpret this as meaning that they are

outside of time

"ransitory they come into e(istence and

then fade aay over time

"ranscendent the intelligible realm is

outside of space

0mmanent the orld of appearances is the

spatial orld e e(ist in

A priori A posteriori


2/14

intelligible realm is one here everything is fi(ed and not subject to change! and the realm

of appearances is one of constant change and flu(

Plato as influenced by 4eraclitus, he reports:

5Heraclitus says somewhere that everything gives way and nothing stands fast, and likening

the things that are to the flowing of a river, he says that you cannot step into the same river

twice

Plato, 6ratylus 7&889a, p&2'

Plato agreed ith 4eraclitus, but as deeply unsatisfied ith this as an account to

ultimate nature of being

4e thought that the realm of the orms must e(ist in order to provide a set of values emust aspire to and live by

"he argument from opposites

6ommencing from line ;9< in The Republic, Plato offers an argument for the orms, as

follos:

4e distinguishes beteen those ho have access to the orms and those ho only have

access to the realm of appearances "he former are the philosophers! the latter are

=Sight-lovers and art-lovers and practical men !who" are delighted #y

#eautiful sounds and colours and shapes, and the works of art which make use of

them$

Plato 7&8>9, ;9?b'

Plato is distinguishing beteen the beauty conceived in its pure form, and the beauty

displayed in particulars

"he sight%lover perceives beauty at the level of the particular, but Plato believes e can

contemplate a pure orm in the abstract

4e dras a distinction beteen the orm and its particulars according to the above table

4e argues that ualities all have opposites these include:

&' @eauty)ugliness

2' ustice)injustice

B' Cood)evil

0f a particular possesses one uality, it must also possess the opposite

or e(ample, a painting may contain some elements hich are less harmonious than others,

and a beautiful person may become less beautiful as he or she ages


3/14

Particulars contain opposites as they are relative to each other

or e(ample, the statement painting A is more beautiful than painting @, also means that

painting A is not as ugly as painting @.

Dhen applied to particulars, difference in individual perspective means that binary opposites

dont function as mutually e(clusive terms

Plato claims that there are absolute versions of ualities % hich are accessible through

reason % and are the basis on hich the particulars are judged

0f a particular contains both a uality and its opposite, then *noledge of the relationship of

that uality to the particular is impossible

"his leads to the faculties argument

The faculties argument

Plato argues that our faculties, e.g. the faculty of reason and the faculty of sight, haverigid boundaries i.e. a facultys field is uniue to that faculty

4e argues that *noledge and opinion are separate faculties, hich leads to this

critical piece of dialogue:

5Since knowledge is related to what is, and ignorance, necessarily to what is not,

we shall have to find out whether what lies #etween them there corresponds

something #etween ignorance and knowledge, if there is such a thing$

+%es$

+&snt there something we call opinion'

+(f course

+&s it the same faculty as knowledge or different'

+)ifferent$

+So opinion and knowledge must have different correlates corresponding to their difference of

faculty'

+They must$

+Then knowledge is related to what is, and knows what is as it is$

Plato 7&8>9, ;99a%c'


4/14

0t is disputed hat Plato means by +is in this passage

4e is not concerned ith the e(istential +is, found in a proposition such as =he is5

0f e accept that he means e can only truly *no that hich e(ists, the corollary ould be

that Plato ould be committed to the absurd position of e could only be ignorant of hat

doesnt e(ist

0f opinion lies beteen *noledge and opinion, Plato is surely not implying that its objects

simultaneously do and do not e(ist

0t seems li*ely his focus is upon +is as a form of prediction, or attribute of a property

"his ould give us the folloing definitions:

&' Enoledge is related to hat is 0 *no propertypofx, if and only if 0 attributep tox,

andp is true ofx

2' 0gnorance is related to hat is not 0 am ignorant of property pofx, if and only if 0

attributep tox andp is not true ofx.

B' Fpinion lies beteen *noledge and ignorance 0 believe propertypofx, if 0 attributeptox, hether or notpis true ofx.

3o a orm is an unualified bearer of a predicate

"he orms 7e.g. beauty' capture the essence of a orm they are pure

Particulars never possess the uality 7e.g. beauty' in its +pure state

"heMona Lisapainting is a concrete e(ample e may say ="he 1ona Gisa is beautiful5,

but this isnt a necessary truth, as it is my not be perceived as beautiful from all cultural

positions

urthermore, it may degrade in time and become less beautiful

"hus, the 1ona Gisa is not unualified, pure beauty. 3o the statement ="he 1ona Gisa is

beautiful5 is both true and not true

"o Plato, this is opinion, not *noledge

4e ma*es a further claim about the distinction beteen *noledge and opinion:

5* little while ago you agreed that knowledge and opinion were different$

%es, he replied, #ecause no reasona#le person would identify the infalli#le with the

falli#le

Plato 7&8>9, ;99e'

Enoledge is infallible and necessarily true! opinion is fallible and may or not be true

Dhen e have *noledge of something e are certain of the fact. Plato ta*es this as

common *noledge

De may thin* e *no things in the realm of the particulars, but e can never be certain,

as everything is contingent.


5/14

Plato lin*s infallibility ith the intelligible realm if e can contemplate a thing, e can

distinguish it from particulars, hich e hold just opinion of

"his leaves the uestion open as to hether a reasonable person ould dispute this point,

as it less commonsensical as Plato ma*es it out to be

"his is only an argument for some of the orms! Plato e(plicitly states that every object

in the orld has a orm

"he argument from opposites succeeds if, in order to have certain *noledge of one part

of a binary opposition, one must be able to have access to the pure orm of it

4oever, it is hard to see ho an object li*e a bed or a toaster ould have an opposite

"he material bed is only a partial representation of its orm, but it difficult to see ho

this or*s in the same ay as the distinction beteen, say, beauty and ugliness

or Plato, there is a sharp distinction beteen objects as particulars and objects as self%

predicating orms

*ccess to the Forms

0n seeing the oppositions ithin particulars, our minds are actively dran to focus upon

these, and to abstract the ualities from the particular in order to focus on the unualified

aspect

3o e move from the visible 7particular' to the intelligible 7the orm'

0n reply to the criticism about the orm of the @ed, e can focus on the essentials that

constitute the particulars

Plato is a rationalist this can be contrasted ith the empiricist viepoints of @er*eley and

4ume. 4e denies that e(perience itself leads to *noledge

4e believes that reason itself leads us to genuine truths, unli*e Hescartes 6lassical

rationalism that employs hyperbolic doubt on a firm epistemological basis to discover truths

+evels of truth

Hifferent levels of reality imply a hierarchy of truth! particulars parta*e less in the orms as

they move don the scale


6/14

"he orm is the pure version of the object, the particular is less pure, and the artists

representation of the object is less pure still. As Plato says,

5The artists representation stands at third remove from reality

Plato 7&8>9,


7/14

3un orm of the Cood

3ource of light in the visible realm 3ource of truth in the intelligible realm

Allos particulars to gro 0mparts reality to the orms

Gights the orld and allos the eyes to see 0mparts intelligibility and allos the mind

to *no

Plato is not claiming that reason cannot function only directly in light of the

Cood, just that e can use it more efficiently and reliably ith the Cood

"his is analogous to the eye e can see ith the aid of artificial light or the light

of the moon, but not as ell as e could ith light from the sun

De cannot fully access the orms ithout reason:

5/ust as it was right to think of light and sight as #eing like the sun, #ut wrong

to think of them as #eing the sun itself, so here again it is right to think of

knowledge and truth as #eing like the good, #ut wrong to think of either of them

as #eing the good, whose positions must #e ranked still higher$

Plato 7&8>9, e%


8/14

contemplation and the orm of the Cood

0t is part of his educational programme, and justifies hy mathematics is an important part

of the education of the philosopher

Platos claim for mathematics as a route to the orms is that, as mathematical figures are

more abstract than most particulars that e encounter, or*ing through mathematical proofs

is training our mind to thin* in the abstract

De can then move from mathematics to dialectic, here e abstract unualified predicates

from particulars

1athematicians such as A.#. Dhitehead have been dran toards Platonic theories

/uestions about the reality of numbers are amenable to e(planation in terms of the theory of

the orms

#umbers are universal there is an issue s to hat it means to claim the number to is a

+real number

Fther accomplished philosophers, such as Hescartes and Geibni$, have been mathematicians

perhaps the to disciplines lend themselves to each otherI

"he loer end of the line divides into illusion and belief

@elief is associated ith studies of the material orld

0llusion corresponds to copies of the objects of belief, such as artistic representation

The cave

"he cave is the most important simile in "he Republic it encapsulates the similes of the

sun and divided line, and represents Platos many concerns

"he main concerns are:

&' "o illustrate Platos metaphysical claims about appearance and reality and *noledge and

belief, and the process of education as the philosopher moves toards *noledge of the

Cood

2' "o reinforce the role of the orm of the Cood by e(tending the simile of the sun

B' "o illustrate the role of the orms in Platos ethical theory and the political implications

;' "o illustrate hat Plato thin*s that the role of the philosopher in society should be, his

actual status, and hy it is undervalued

De shall address the first to points

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 0nsert)refer to diagram of the caveJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ


9/14

"he cave corresponds to the visible realm, hile the orld outside the cave

corresponds to the intelligible

"here are subdivisions of each realm according to the line

"he journey of the prisoner ho is mysteriously released from his bonds then

illustrates the results of thorough philosophical education on one ho is suited to it

Eey aspects are:

&' the bound prisoners are at the level of illusion all they see are shados and

reflections. 0t is not obvious hether seeing nothing but shados is ever a feature ofeveryday life. De must assume that, as the cave dellers are at the level of opinion, that

the shados and reflected noises stand for opinions pic*ed up from others, and possibly

ra sensory e(perience

2' the prisoner turns and becomes accustomed to the light he notices men ma*ing

shados ith objects, but copies of objects. "his is *non as double deception!

sometimes characterised by those ho carry them. "he passage of the prisoner seeing

the shados arent real, to the fact the objects arent real, to the fact that the men are

carrying the objects is indicative of the passage from ignorance to even firmer belief

B' "he fire performs the same role in the cave as the sun does outside the fire is a false

orm of the Cood that the prisoners opinions are based upon and judged upon

;' "he prisoner is forcibly dragged up the steep slope this represents the rigours ofeducation. Presumably, those forcing him along are his teachers. very stage in the

simile is either difficult to traverse or painful on the eyes. "he implication is that many

ill either turn bac* or stop before they reach the final stage! they are reluctant to see the

truth


10/14

0ounter arguments1 knowledge2opinion

1any commentators thin* Platos claim about *noledge and opinion is unsustainable, orconstitutes a radical definition of hat *noledge is

0t is uestionable hether Plato is tal*ing about *noledge as e commonly understand the

term

De can argue that if *noledge is to be euated ith certainty, e can be certain about

things ithout reference to the orms

or e(ample, 0 can be sure of the relationship beteen particulars. or e(ample, 0 may not

be certain of all aspects of a bed or pillo, but the statement that a pillo is laying on my

bed is surely true and not just a matter of opinion.

3o once a proposition is conte(tualised, it can become certain. or instance, the proposition,=the 1ona Gisa is beautiful5 may not be true for all time, but to claim that it as)is beautiful

from a particular cultural perspective at a point in time does seem to be true for all time

De can attac* Plato ith Havid 4umes +necessary relations of ideas. 0t can be argued that

e can be certain of statements that are true independent of e(perience, for e(ample,

+bachelors are unmarried men.

3urely e can believe this ithout *noing it to be the case. Platos account brea*s don

here

4oever, ulia Annas offered a revised reading of Plato, claiming he is not committed to

saying e can only have *noledge of the orms rather e can only hold *noledge ofthe orms, never opinion

Although, Annas admits that some passages of "he Republic cannot be read in this ay

ssentially, these commentators are saying that Platos account of the orms is inconsistent

0ontradiction'

"here is a further problem of consistency in Platos set up of the argument of opposites:

5Since #eauty and ugliness are opposites, they are two$

(f course$

*nd as they are two, each of them is single$

That is so$

Plato 7&8>9, ;9


11/14

opposite in order to sho that e cannot have *noledge of them

4oever, it is clearly stated in the simile of the sun that all orms parta*e in the orm of

the Cood and a movement aay from the orm, via particulars, and so forth is one of decay

or corruption

"he clear implication is that the orm isnt in an opposing pair, but is the appro(imated

the further one moves aay from it

"his seems reasonable in terms of the simile of the sun, but it is hard to see ho the

perfect orm of ugliness parta*es in the orm of the Cood. "here seems to be no reconciling

argument ith the argument from opposites

Also, one of Platos e(amples of paired opposites is good and evil. 0t is hard to see ho

the orm of vil could parta*e in the orm of the Cood

0n the simile of the sun, e ould say there is light and dar*ness, and the latter is

absence of the former dar*ness does no parta*e in the sun in any ay hatsoever

"here seems to be no ay to resolve the contradiction here

The status of 3latos similes

Are Platos similes framed as arguments or just simply illustrationsI 0f the latter, cant e

simply reject the analogyI

0n the simile of the cave, if e grant Plato his initial premises, the rest of the steps are

corollaries, but hy ould e grant this set upI

A realist could object that our situation is in no ay analogous to that of the prisoners! they

may respond that there is no cave and the only orld is that of the sunlight in hich e

spend our days

0f e ta*e this position, it is hard to see ho a simile could have the poer to convince us

otherise

"here is also a tension beteen Platos attitude toards art i.e. that artistic representation

is in the category of illusion and is removed from reality and his use of similes

Dhat is a simile if it is not a representation of an argument opposed to the proper argument

itselfI

0f Plato is correct in saying that artor* is someho second%hand and distorts the truth, then

his similes must suffer from the same objection! the similes are inferior to rational argument

*ristotle on the Forms

Aristotle found the orms deeply unsatisfactory for many reasons

"he first objection is *non as the problem of the third man 7Metaphysics, &8>;'


12/14

0f e ta*e man as an e(ample, Plato claims there are particular men, all of hom

share a common uality hich defines them as men done by parta*ing in the orm of

1an

Aristotle argues that in order for the to categories of particulars and orms to relate

to each other, they must share something in common hich can be identified as such

0f e ta*e Plato seriously as to the relationship beteen ualities, this ne commonuality must be due to another entity that they all parta*e in, and e call this +the third

man

3o e have introduced another element. 0f e loo* at a group of three elements, the

reason they relate to each other is because they share something identifiable in common:

e reuire a +fourth man in order to relate them all together

De can continue in this process ad infinitum and are stuc* in vicious infinite regress,

here the orms of the orms have orms, and so on

Aristotles second objection, found in The Nichomachean Ethicsis a to%fold attac*.

irstly, he points out there is not one universal +good that means the same henever eapply it:

5Things can #e called good in two senses1 some as good in their own right, and

others as means to secure these! Therefore good is not a common characteristic

corresponding to one idea$

Aristotle 72;, p&&%&2'

"his ould imply there is no single, unifying, orm of the Cood

urthermore, Aristotle uestions hether the orm of the Cood could have any

practical advantage gained from contemplating it:

54hat advantage is his art will a weaver or a .oiner get from knowledge of the

good-itself' (r how will one who has had a vision of the idea itself #ecome there#y

a #etter doctor or general'

Aristotle 72;, p&B'

Plato fails to distinguish beteen the theoretical and practical *noledge he

assumes that *noing something in the abstract puts that *noledge to practical use

ust because 0 might *no hat a doctor does and have a good *noledge of

medicine, that does not mean 0 ill necessarily have the s*ills to ma*e a good doctor

&mitation

Plato thin*s there is a hierarchy of imitation that moves aay from the orms and


13/14

decreases in value as it does so

4oever, just because something, li*e a or* of art, is far removed from the

orms, does this mean e cannot learn anything from itI

Rosalind 4ursthouse gives the folloing e(ample:

5(ne might still think that some knowledge of reality could #e gained even fromsomething which stood at a third remove from it$ &f & am trying to gain true

knowledge of the Form of the 5ird, for eample, might not my search for this

knowledge #e aided #y pictures of #irds the like of which & have never seen,

#rought from other countries' Few of us have seen kiwis it is the pictures of

them that aid us towards the knowledge that 6as 3lato might say7 the Form of

the 5ird is not that of a winged creature$

4ursthouses e(ample indicates there is a possibility of improving ones grasp of

the orm by a consideration of the imitations of particulars

Perhaps a different approach to the problem of universals and particulars is

reuired. Dittgenstein highlights one such approach:

50onsider for eample the proceedings we call games$ & mean #oard games,

card-games, #all games, (lympic games, and so on$ 4hat is common to them

all' 8 )ont say1 There must #e something common, or they would not #e

called 9games 8 #ut look and see whether there is anything common to all$ For

if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, #ut

similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that$ To repeat1 dont

think, #ut look: 8 +ook for eample at #oard games, with multifarious

relationships$ ;ow pass to card games here you find many correspondences

with the first group, #ut many common features drop out and others appear$

!"

*nd the result of this eamination is1 we see a complicated network of

similarities overlapping and criss-crossing sometimes overall similarities,

sometimes similarities of detail$

& can think of no #etter epression to characteri


14/14

% M is said to be a game because it shares property qith L. Although it shares no

properties ith K 7including propertyp), both are games because of their 7differing'

resemblances to L.

Fn Platos account,pould be the orm of the Came, so M could not possibly be

a game

4oever, the definition is much more informal than Plato ould have us believe,as M can be identified as a game because of its relation to L, via q

"he definition of +game can shift as ne resemblances are recognised or

generated

"his e(planation complies ith Aristotles +third man argument as, far from

particulars having to share a common uality via an entity above them, the

relationship is entirely beteen particulars ithout the orm

"his position also solves the problem of infinite regress, and there is no necessity

of a +third man to relate orms to particulars

a2 philosophy revision - plato

Documents