PLATO (C. 427– C. 347 B.C.) ←

Themes, Arguments, and Ideas

→

Dialogue and Dialectic

The dialogue form in which Plato writes is more than a mere literary device; it is

instead an expression of Plato’s understanding of the purpose and nature of

philosophy. For Plato, philosophy is a process of constant questioning, and questioning

necessarily takes the form of dialogue. Near the end of the Phaedrus, Socrates

expresses his reservations about written texts, worrying that people will cease to think

for themselves when they have someone else’s thoughts written out in front of them.

Plato took it upon himself to write his thoughts down anyway, but he was careful not to

write them in such a way that we could easily assimilate his thoughts rather than

thinking for ourselves. Many of the dialogues reach no definite conclusions, and those

that do generally approach those conclusions by casting doubts and examining

possible counterarguments. Plato cannot be there in person to share his thoughts with

us, but he wants to ensure that we think through them ourselves.

In keeping with this emphasis on dialogue form, Plato develops an increasingly

complex conception of dialectic, or logical argument, as the engine that drives

philosophical investigations. In the early dialogues, dialectic consists of Socrates

cross-examining and refuting his interlocutors until he brings them to a state of

perplexity, or aporia. Beginning with the Meno, Plato recognizes that dialectic can lead

people not only to recognize their errors but also to positive discoveries, as Socrates

does with the slave boy in the Meno. Plato is sufficiently impressed with the

possibilities of the dialectic that, in the Republic, he makes it the highest achievement

of his rigorous education program. The Phaedrus introduces a more systematic version

of the dialectic, seeing it as a matter of “division and generalization,” whereby we

analyze concepts so as to understand the precise relations between them. This

process of division and generalization becomes increasingly sophisticated throughout

Plato’s works, and we witness advanced versions of it in the Parmenides and

the Sophist.

Combating the Relativism of the Sophists

Plato considers the sophists to be one of the primary enemies of virtue, and he is

merciless in his attacks on them. The sophists, who were relatively new in Plato’s day,

were a class of itinerant teachers who instructed young statesmen in the arts of

rhetoric and debate for a fee. They taught that values are relative, so that the only

measure of who is right is who comes out on top. Their teachings capitalized on a void

left by the ancient myths and religion, which were falling out of fashion as Greek

civilization moved toward a more rational worldview. The old values were losing their

relevance, and there were no new values to replace them. Plato could see the danger

this moral relativism posed for the state and for the people who lived in it, and his

attacks on the sophists show up their hollow bravado that so many took for wisdom.

Plato’s Theory of Forms, and the whole enterprise of theRepublic, can be read as an

attempt to find a solid grounding for moral values in rational principles.

The Theory of Forms

The Theory of Forms maintains that two distinct levels of reality exist: the visible world

of sights and sounds that we inhabit and the intelligible world of Forms that stands

above the visible world and gives it being. For example, Plato maintains that in addition

to being able to identify a beautiful person or a beautiful painting, we also have a

general conception of Beauty itself, and we are able to identify the beauty in a person

or a painting only because we have this conception of Beauty in the abstract. In other

words, the beautiful things we can see are beautiful only because they participate in

the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and

unchanging, unlike the things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their

beauty. The Theory of Forms envisions an entire world of such Forms, a world that

exists outside of time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage, Temperance, and

the like exist untarnished by the changes and imperfections of the visible world.

Plato’s conception of Forms actually differs from dialogue to dialogue, and in certain

respects it is never fully explained, so many aspects of the theory are open to

interpretation. Forms are first introduced in the Phaedo, but in that dialogue the

concept is simply referred to as something the participants are already familiar with,

and the theory itself is not developed. Similarly, in the Republic, Plato relies on the

concept of Forms as the basis of many of his arguments but feels no need to argue for

the validity of the theory itself or to explain precisely what Forms are. Commentators

have been left with the task of explaining what Forms are and how visible objects

participate in them, and there has been no shortage of disagreement. Some scholars

advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect examples on which the imperfect

world is modeled. Others interpret Forms as universals, so that the Form of Beauty, for

example, is that quality that all beautiful things share. Yet others interpret Forms as

“stuffs,” the conglomeration of all instances of a quality in the visible world. Under this

interpretation, we could say there is a little beauty in one person, a little beauty in

another—all the beauty in the world put together is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself

was aware of the ambiguities and inconsistencies in his Theory of Forms, as is evident

from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides.

In essence, the Theory of Forms represents Plato’s attempt to cultivate our capacity for

abstract thought. Philosophy was a relatively new invention in Plato’s day, and it

competed with mythology, tragedy, and epic poetry as the primary means by which

people could make sense of their place in the world. Like philosophy, art and

mythology provide concepts that help us to understand ourselves, but art and

mythology do so by appealing to our emotions and desires. Philosophy appeals to the

intellect. The Theory of Forms differentiates the abstract world of thought from the

world of the senses, where art and mythology operate. Plato also argued that abstract

thought is superior to the world of the senses. By investigating the world of Forms,

Plato hopes to attain a greater knowledge.

The Theory of the Tripartite Soul

In the Republic and thePhaedrus, Plato describes the soul as divided into three parts,

labeled appetitive, spirited, andrational. He offers this division partly as a way of

explaining our psychological complexity and partly to provide a justification for

philosophy as the highest of all pursuits, because it corresponds to the highest part of

the soul—the rational part. We might feel the pull of these three parts when presented

with a bowl of ice cream, a roast we accidentally overcooked ourselves, and a healthy

salad. The appetitive part of our soul will crave the sensual pleasures it will derive from

the ice cream, the spirited part of our soul will want to eat the charred roast out of a

sense of pride in our own work, and the rational part of our soul will want to eat the

salad as the healthiest of the three options. In proposing a tripartite soul, Plato

acknowledges and seeks to explain the fact that we all experience inner conflict from

time to time. We would be justified in seeing this theory as the starting point for

psychology. However, Plato’s theory seeks not only to explain inner conflict but also to

present the rational part of the soul as superior. Philosophy is essentially the practice

of refining and foregrounding our rationality.

The Importance of Education for the Health of the State

In both the Republic and the Laws, Plato identifies education as one of the most

important aspects of a healthy state. He lays out detailed education programs that start

with exercises pregnant women should perform to ensure the health of the fetus, and

he goes on to explain not only what children should study but also what values they

should be exposed to and what kinds of art and physical exercise they should engage

in. Plato apparently considered most of his fellow Athenians to be hopelessly corrupt,

easily inflamed by hollow rhetoric, and seduced by easy pleasures. One can achieve

only so much by arguing with a corrupt soul that a virtuous life is better. Instead, Plato

recognizes the need to teach children from a young age to live virtuous lives and to

seek wisdom. Plato thinks that a child’s education is the last thing that should be left to

chance or parental whim, since the young mind is so easily molded.