Lecture 8

Greek Thought: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

The political and social upheaval caused by the Persian Wars as well as continued
strife between Athens and Sparta (see Lecture 7) had at least one unintended
consequence . In the 5th century, a flood of new ideas poured into Athens. In general,
these new ideas came as a result of an influx of Ionian thinkers into the Attic
peninsula. Athens had become the intellectual and artistic center of the Greek world.
Furthermore, by the mid-5th century, it had become more common for advanced
thinkers to reject traditional explanations of the world of nature. As a result of the
experience of a century of war, religious beliefs declined. Gods and goddesses were
no longer held in the same regard as they had been a century earlier. I suppose we
could generalize and say that the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars taught that the
actions of men and women determine their own destiny, and not "Moira." Meanwhile,
more traditional notions of right and wrong were called into question, and all of this
was expressed in Hellenic tragedy and comedy.

The Greeks used their creative energies to explain experience by recourse to history,
tragedy, comedy, art and architecture. But their creative energies were also used to
"invent" philosophy, defined as "the love of wisdom." In general, philosophy came
into existence when the Greeks discovered their dissatisfaction with supernatural and
mythical explanations of reality. Over time, Greek thinkers began to suspect that there
was a rational or logical order to the universe.

The Pre-Socratic Philosophers

The PRE-SOCRATIC philosophers came from the city
of Miletus in the region of Ionia. Miletus was a
prominent trading depot and its people had direct
contact with the ideas of the Near East. Around 600
B.C., Milesian thinkers "discovered" speculation after
asking a simple but profound question: "what exists?"
It was the Ionian natural philosopher, Thales of
Miletus (c.624-548 B.C.), who answered that
everything in the universe was made of water and
resolves itself into water. What was so revolutionary
about Thales was that he omitted the gods from his
account of the origins of nature. It is also necessary to
point out that Thales committed none of his views to
writing. Anaximander of Miletus (c.611-c.547 B.C.), another Milesian thinker,
rejected Thales, and argued instead that an indefinite substance -- the Boundless --
was the source of all things. According to Anaximander, the cold and wet condensed

1
to form the earth while the hot and dry formed the moon, sun and stars. The heat from
the fire in the skies dried the earth and shrank the seas. It's a rather fantastic scheme,
but at least Anaximander sought natural explanations for the origin of the natural
world.

Thales and Anaximander were "matter" philosophers -- they believed that everything
had its origin in a material substance. Pythagoras of Samos (c.580-507 B.C.) did not
find that nature of things in material substances but in mathematical relationships. The
Pythagoreans, who lived in Greek cities in southern Italy, discovered that the intervals
in the musical scale could be expressed mathematically and that this principle could
be extended to the universe. In other words, the universe contained an inherent
mathematical order. What we witness in the Pythagoreans is the emphasis on form
rather than matter, and here we move from sense perception to the logic of
mathematics.

Parmenides of Elea (c.515-450 B.C.), also challenged the fundamental views of the
Ionian philosophers that all things emerged from one substance. What Parmenides did
was to apply logic to the arguments of the Pythagoreans, thus setting the groundwork
of formal logic. He argued that reality is one, eternal and unchanging. We "know"
reality not by the senses, which are capable of deception, but through the human
mind, not through experience, but through reason. As we shall see, this concept shall
become central to the philosophic thought of Plato.

Perhaps the most important of all the Pre-Socratic philosophers was Heraclitus of
Ephesus (fl. 500 B.C.). Known as "the weeping philosopher" because of his
pessimistic view of human nature and "the dark one" because of the mystical
obscurity of his thought, Heraclitus wrote On Nature, fragments of which we still
possess. Whereas the Pythagoreans had emphasized harmony, Heraclitus suggested
that life was maintained by a tension of opposites, fighting a continuous battle in
which neither side could win a final victory. Movement and the flux of change were
unceasing for individuals, but the structure of the cosmos constant. This law of
individual flux within a permanent universal framework was guaranteed by the Logos,
an intelligent governing principle materially embodied as fire, and identified with soul
or life.

Fire is the primordial element out of which all else has arisen -- change (becoming) is
the first principle of the universe. Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, once made the
remark that "You cannot step twice into the same river." The water will be different
water the second time, and if we call the river the same, it is because we see its reality
in its form. The logical conclusion of this is the opposite of flux, that is, a belief in an
absolute, unchanging reality of which the world of change and movement is only a
quasi-existing phantom, phenomenal, not real.

Democritus of Abdera (c.460-370 B.C.) argued that knowledge was derived through
sense perception -- the senses illustrate to us that change does occur in nature.
However, Democritus also retained Parmenides' confidence in human reason. His
universe consisted of empty space and an infinite number of atoms (a-tomos, the
"uncuttable"). Eternal and indivisible, these atoms moved in the void of space. An
atomic theory to the core, Democritus saw all matter constructed of atoms which
accounted for all change in the natural world.

2
What the Pre-Socratic thinkers from Thales to Democritus had done was nothing less
than amazing -- they had given to nature a rational and non-mythical foundation. This
new approach allowed a critical analysis of theories, whereas mythical explanations
relied on blind faith alone. Such a spirit even found its way into medicine, where the
Greek physician Hippocrates of Cos (c.460-c.377 B.C.) was able to distinguish
between magic and medicine. Physicians observed ill patients, classified symptoms
and then made predictions about the course of a disease. For instance, of epilepsy, he
wrote: "It is not, in my opinion, any more divine or more scared than other diseases,
but has a natural cause, and its supposed divine origin is due to men's inexperience,
and to their wonder at its peculiar character."

The Sophists
Into such an atmosphere of change came the traveling teachers, the Sophists. The
Sophists were a motley bunch – some hailed from the Athenian polis or other city-
states, but the majority came from Ionia, in Asia Minor. The Sophists were men
whose responsibility it was to train and educate the sons of Athenian citizens. There
were no formal school as we know them today. Instead, these were peripatetic
schools, meaning that the instructor would walk with students and talk with them –
for a fee, of course. The Sophists taught the skills (sophia) of rhetoric and oratory.
Both of these arts were essential for the education of the Athenian citizenry. After all,
it was the sons of the citizens who would eventually find themselves debating
important issues in the Assembly and the Council of Five Hundred. Rhetoric can be
described as the art of composition, while oratory was the art of public speaking.

The Sophists abandoned science, philosophy, mathematics and ethics. What they
taught was the subtle art of persuasion. A Sophist was a person who could argue
eloquently – and could prove a position whether that position was correct or incorrect.
In other words, what mattered was persuasion and not truth. The Sophists were also
relativists. They believed that there was no such thing as a universal or absolute truth,
valid at all times. According to Protagoras (c.485-c.411 B.C.), "Man is the measure of
all things." Everything is relative and there are no values because man, individual
man, is the measure of all things. Nothing is good or bad since everything depends on
the individual. Gorgias of Leontini (c.485-c.380 B.C.), who visited Athens in 427,
was a well-paid teacher of rhetoric and famous for his saying that a man could not
know anything. And if he could, he could not describe it and if he could describe it,
no one would understand him.

The Sophistic movement of the fifth century B.C. has been the subject of much
discussion and there is no single view about their significance. Plato's treatment of the
Sophists in his late dialogue, the Sophist, is hardly flattering. He does not treat them
as real seekers after truth but as men whose only concern was making money and
teaching their students success in argument by whatever means. Aristotle said that a
Sophist was "one who made money by sham wisdom."

At their very best, the Sophists challenged the accepted values of the fifth century.
They wanted the freedom to sweep away old conventions as a way of finding a better
understanding of the universe, the gods and man. The Sophists have been compared
with the philosophes of the 18th century Enlightenment who also used criticism and
reason to wipe out anything they deemed was contrary to human reason. Regardless
of what we think of the Sophists as a group or individually, they certainly did have the

3
 cumulative effect of further degrading a mythical understanding of the
universe and of man.

Socrates
From the ranks of the Sophists came SOCRATES (c.469-399 B.C.),
perhaps the most noble and wisest Athenian to have ever lived. He was
born sometime in 469, we don't know for sure. What we do know is that
his father was Sophroniscus, a stone cutter, and his mother, Phaenarete,
was a midwife. Sophroniscus was a close friend of the son of Aristides the Just
(c.550-468 B.C.), and the young Socrates was familiar with members of the circle of
Pericles. In his youth he fought as a hoplite at Potidaea (432-429), Delium (424) and
Amphipolis (422) during the Peloponnesian Wars. To be sure, his later absorption in
philosophy made him neglect his private affairs and he eventually fell to a level of
comparative poverty. He was perhaps more in love with the study of philosophy than
with his family -- that his wife Xanthippe was shrew is a later tale. In Plato's dialogue,
the Crito, we meet a Socrates concerned with the future of his three sons. Just the
same, his entire life was subordinated to "the supreme art of philosophy." He was a
good citizen but held political office only once – he was elected to the Council of Five
Hundred in 406 B.C. In Plato's Apology, Socrates remarks that:

The true champion if justice, if he intends to survive even for a short time, must
necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone.

What we can be sure about Socrates was that he was remarkable for living the life he
preached. Taking no fees, Socrates started and dominated an argument wherever the
young and intelligent would listen, and people asked his advice on matters of practical
conduct and educational problems.

Socrates was not an attractive man -- he was snub-nosed, prematurely bald, and
overweight. But, he was strong in body and the intellectual master of every one with
whom he came into contact. The Athenian youth flocked to his side as he walked the
paths of the agora. They clung to his every word and gesture. He was not a Sophist
himself, but a philosopher, a lover of wisdom.

In 399 B.C., Socrates was charged with impiety by a jury of five hundred of his
fellow citizens. His most famous student, Plato, tells us, that he was charged "as an
evil-doer and curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the
heavens; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to
others." He was convicted to death by a margin of six votes. Oddly enough, the jury
offered Socrates the chance to pay a small fine for his impiety. He rejected it. He also
rejected the pleas of Plato and other students who had a boat waiting for him at
Piraeus that would take him to freedom. But Socrates refused to break the law. What
kind of citizen would he be if he refused to accept the judgment of the jury? No
citizen at all. He spent his last days with his friends before he drank the fatal dose of
hemlock.

The charge made against Socrates -- disbelief in the state's gods -- implied un-
Athenian activities which would corrupt the young and the state if preached publicly.
Meletus, the citizen who brought the indictment, sought precedents in the impiety
trials of Pericles' friends. Although Socrates was neither a heretic nor an agnostic,

4
 there was prejudice against him. He also managed to provoke hostility. For
instance, the Delphic oracle is said to have told Chaerephon that no man
was wiser than Socrates. During his trial Socrates had the audacity to use
this as a justification of his examination of the conduct of all Athenians,
claiming that in exposing their falsehoods, he had proved the god right -- he
at least knew that he knew nothing. Although this episode smacks of
Socrates' well-known irony, he clearly did believe that his mission was divinely
inspired.

Socrates has been described as a gadfly -- a first-class pain. The reason why this
charge is somewhat justified is that he challenged his students to think for themselves
– to use their minds to answer questions. He did not reveal answers. He did not reveal
truth. Many of his questions were, on the surface, quite simple: what is courage? what
is virtue? what is duty? But what Socrates discovered, and what he taught his students
to discover, was that most people could not answer these fundamental questions to his
satisfaction, yet all of them claimed to be courageous, virtuous and dutiful. So, what
Socrates knew, was that he knew nothing, upon this sole fact lay the source of his
wisdom. Socrates was not necessarily an intelligent man – but he was a wise man.
And there is a difference between the two.

Plato
Socrates wrote nothing himself. What we know of him comes from the writings of
two of his closest friends, Xenophon and Plato. Although Xenophon (c.430-c.354
B.C.) did write four short portraits of Socrates, it is almost to Plato alone that we
know anything of Socrates. PLATO (c.427-347 B.C.) came from a family of aristoi,
served in the Peloponnesian War, and was perhaps Socrates' most famous student. He
was twenty-eight years old when Socrates was put to death. At the age of forty, Plato
established a school at Athens for the education of Athenian youth. The Academy, as
it was called, remained in existence from 387 B.C. to A.D. 529, when it was closed by
Justinian, the Byzantine emperor.

Our knowledge of Socrates comes to us from numerous dialogues which Plato wrote
after 399. In nearly every dialogue – and there are more than thirty that we know
about – Socrates is the main speaker. The style of the Plato's dialogue is important – it
is the Socratic style that he employs throughout. A Socratic dialogue takes the form of
question-answer, question-answer, question-answer. It is a dialectical style as well.
Socrates would argue both sides of a question in order to arrive at a conclusion. Then
that conclusion is argued against another assumption and so on. Perhaps it is not that
difficult to understand why Socrates was considered a gadfly!

There is a reason why Socrates employed this style, as well as why Plato recorded his
experience with Socrates in the form of a dialogue. Socrates taught Plato a great many
things, but one of the things Plato more or less discovered on his own was that
mankind is born with knowledge. That is, knowledge is present in the human mind at
birth. It is not so much that we "learn" things in our daily experience, but that we
"recollect" them. In other words, this knowledge is already there. This may explain
why Socrates did not give his students answers, but only questions. His job was not to
teach truth but to show his students how they could "pull" truth out of their own
minds (it is for this reason that Socrates often considered himself a midwife in the

5
labor of knowledge). And this is the point of the dialogues. For only in conversation,
only in dialogue, can truth and wisdom come to the surface.

Plato's greatest and most enduring work was his lengthy dialogue, The Republic. This
dialogue has often been regarded as Plato's blueprint for a future society of perfection.
I do not accept this opinion. Instead, I would like to suggest that The Republic is not a
blueprint for a future society, but rather, is a dialogue which discusses the education
necessary to produce such a society. It is an education of a strange sort – he called it
paideia. Nearly impossible to translate into modern idiom, paideia refers to the
process whereby the physical, mental and spiritual development of the individual is of
paramount importance. It is the education of the total individual.

The Republic discusses a number of topics including the nature of justice,

statesmanship, ethics and the nature of politics. It is in The Republic that Plato
suggests that democracy was little more than a "charming form of government." And
this he is writing less than one hundred years after the brilliant age of Periclean
democracy. So much for democracy. After all, it was Athenian democracy that
convicted Socrates. For Plato, the citizens are the least desirable participants in
government. Instead, a philosopher-king or guardian should hold the reigns of power.
An aristocracy if you will – an aristocracy of the very best – the best of the aristoi.

Plato's Republic also embodies one of the clearest expressions of his theory of
knowledge. In The Republic, Plato asks what is knowledge? what is illusion? what is
reality? how do we know? what makes a thing, a thing? what can we know? These are
epistemological questions – that is, they are questions about knowledge itself. He
distinguishes between the reality presented to us by our senses – sight, touch, taste,
sound and smell – and the essence or Form of that reality. In other words, reality is
always changing – knowledge of reality is individual, it is particular, it is knowledge
only to the individual knower, it is not universal.

Building upon the wisdom of Socrates and Parmenides, Plato argued that reality is
known only through the mind. There is a higher world, independent of the world we
may experience through our senses. Because the senses may deceive us, it is
necessary that this higher world exist, a world of Ideas or Forms -- of what is
unchanging, absolute and universal. In other words, although there may be something
from the phenomenal world which we consider beautiful or good or just, Plato
postulates that there is a higher unchanging reality of the beautiful, goodness or
justice. To live in accordance with these universal standards is the good life -- to grasp
the Forms is to grasp ultimate truth.

The unphilosophical man – that is, all of us – is at the mercy of sense impressions and
unfortunately, our sense impressions oftentimes fail us. Our senses deceive us. But
because we trust our senses, we are like prisoners in a cave – we mistake shadows on
a wall for reality. This is the central argument of Plato's ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE
which appears in Book VII of The Republic.

Plato realized that the Athenian state, and along with it, Athenian direct democracy,
had failed to realize its lofty ideals. Instead, the citizens sent Socrates to his death and
direct democracy had failed. The purpose of The Republic was something of a
warning to all Athenians that without respect for law, leadership and a sound

6
 education for the young, their city would continue to decay. Plato wanted to
rescue Athens from degeneration by reviving that sense of community that had
at one time made the polis great. The only way to do this, Plato argued, was to
give control over to the Philosopher-Kings, men who had philosophical
knowledge, and to give little more than "noble lies" to everyone else. The
problem as Plato saw it was that power and wisdom had traveled divergent
paths -- his solution was to unite them in the guise of the Philosopher-King.

Aristotle
Plato's most famous student was ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C.). His father was the
personal physician to Philip of Macedon and Aristotle was, for a time at least, the
personal tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle styled himself a biologist – he is said
to have spent his honeymoon collecting specimens at the seashore. He too was
charged with impiety, but fled rather than face the charges – I suppose that tells you
something about Aristotle.

At the age of eighteen, Aristotle became the student at the Academy of Plato (who
was then sixty years of age). Aristotle also started his own school, the Lyceum in 335
B.C. It too was closed by Justinian in A.D. 529. Aristotle was a "polymath" – he knew
a great deal about nearly everything. Very little of Aristotle's writings remain extant.
But his students recorded nearly everything he discussed at the Lyceum. In fact, the
books to which Aristotle's name is attributed are really little more than student
notebooks. This may account for the fact that Aristotle's philosophy is one of the more
difficult to digest. Regardless, Aristotle lectured on astronomy, physics, logic,
aesthetics, music, drama, tragedy, poetry, zoology, ethics and politics. The one field
in which he did not excel was mathematics. Plato, on the other hand, was a master of
geometry.

As a scientist, Aristotle's epistemology is perhaps closer to our own. For Aristotle did
not agree with Plato that there is an essence or Form or Absolute behind every object
in the phenomenal world. I suppose you could argue that Aristotle came from the Jack
Webb school of epistemology – "nothing but the facts, Mam." Or, as one historian has
put it: "The point is, that an elephant, when present, is noticed." In other words,
whereas Plato suggested that man was born with knowledge, Aristotle argued that
knowledge comes from experience. And there, in the space of just a few decades, we
have the essence of those two philosophical traditions which have occupied the
western intellectual tradition for the past 2500 years. Rationalism – knowledge is a
priori (comes before experience) and Empiricism – knowledge is a posteriori (comes
after experience).

It is almost fitting that one of Plato's greatest students ought to have also been his
greatest critics. Like Democritus, Aristotle had confidence in sense perception. As a
result, he had little patience with Plato's higher world of the Forms. However,
Aristotle argued that there were universal principles but that they are derived from
experience. He could not accept, as had Plato, that there was a world of Forms beyond
space and time. Aristotle argued that that there were Forms and Absolutes, but that
they resided in the thing itself. From our experience with horses, for instance, we can
deduce the essence of "horseness." This universal, as it had been for Plato, was the
true object of human knowledge.

7
It perhaps goes without saying that the western intellectual tradition, as well as the
history of western philosophy, must begin with an investigation of ancient Greek
thought. From Thales and the matter philosophers to the empiricism of Aristotle, the
Greeks passed on to the west a spirit of rational inquiry that is very much our own
intellectual property. And while we may never think of Plato or Aristotle as we carry
on in our daily lives, it was their inquiry into knowledge that has served as the
foundation for all subsequent inquiries. Indeed, many have argued with W. H. Auden
that "had Greek civilization never existed we would never have become fully
conscious, which is to say that we would never have become, for better or worse, fully
human."

Aristotle
Michael Fowler, U. Va. Physics, 9/3/2008

Beginnings of Science and Philosophy in Athens

Let us first recap briefly the emergence of philosophy and science in Athens after
around 450 B.C. It all began with Socrates, who was born in 470 B.C. Socrates was a
true philosopher, a lover of wisdom, who tried to elicit the truth by what has become
known as the Socratic method, in which by a series of probing questions he forced
successive further clarification of thought. Of course, such clarity often reveals that
the other person’s ideas don’t in fact make much sense, so that although Socrates
made a lot of things much clearer, he wasn’t a favorite of many establishment
politicians. For example, he could argue very convincingly that traditional morality
had no logical basis. He mostly lectured to the sons of well-to-do aristocrats, one of
whom was Plato, born in 428 B.C. Plato was a young man when Athens was
humiliated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, and Plato probably attributed the loss
to Athens’ being a democracy, as opposed to the kind of fascist war-based state Sparta
was. Plato founded an Academy. The name came (at least in legend) from one
Academus, a landowner on whose estate Plato and other philosophers met regularly.
The important point is that this was the first university. All the people involved were
probably aristocrats, and they discussed everything: politics, economics, morality,
philosophy, mathematics and science. One of their main concerns was to find what
constituted an ideal city-state. Democracy didn’t seem to have worked very well in
their recent past. Plato’s ideas are set out in the Republic.

Plato’s Idea of a Good Education

What is interesting about the Republic from our point of view is the emphasis on a
good education for the elite group in charge of Plato’s ideal society. In particular,
Plato considered education in mathematics and astronomy to be excellent ways of
sharpening the mind. He believed that intense mental exercise of this kind had the
same effect on the mind that a rigorous physical regimen did on the body. Students at
the Academy covered a vast range of subjects, but there was a sign over the door
stating that some knowledge of mathematics was needed to enter—nothing else was

8
 mentioned! Plato in
particular loved geometry,
and felt that the beauty of
the five regular solids he
was the first to categorize
meant they must be
fundamental to nature, they
must somehow be the
shapes of the atoms. Notice
that this approach to physics
is not heavily dependent on
observation and experiment.

Aristotle and Alexander

We turn now to the third member of this trio, Aristotle, born in 384 B.C. in Stagira,
in Thrace, at the northern end of the Aegean, near Macedonia. Aristotle’s father was
the family physician of King Philip of Macedonia. At the age of eighteen, Aristotle
came to Athens to study at Plato’s Academy, and stayed there twenty years until
Plato’s death in 348 B.C. (Statue is a Roman copy of a Greek original, in the Louvre,
photographer Eric Gaba (User:Sting), July 2005.)

Five years after Plato’s death, Aristotle took a position as tutor to King Philip of
Macedonia’s thirteen year old son Alexander. He stayed for three years. It is not clear
what impact, if any, Aristotle’s lessons had, but Alexander, like his father, was a great
admirer of Greek civilization, even though the Athenians considered Macedonia the
boondocks. In fact, when his father Philip died in 336 B.C., Alexander did his best to
spread Greek civilization as far as he could. Macedonia had an excellent army, and
over the next thirteen years Alexander organized Greece as a federation of city states,
conquered Persia, the Middle East, Egypt, southern Afghanistan, some of Central
Asia and the Punjab in India.

The picture below is a fortress built by Alexander’s army in Herat, Afghanistan, and
still standing. (Picture from http://flickr.com/photos/koldo/67606119/ , author
koldo / Koldo Hormaza .)

He founded Greek cities in many places, the greatest being Alexandria in Egypt,
which in fact became the most important center of Greek science later on, and without
which all of Greek learning might have been lost. The Greek cities became restless,
predictably but rather ungratefully, when he demanded to be treated as a god. He died
of a fever at age 33.

Aristotle Founds the Lyceum

Aristotle came back to Athens in 335 B.C., and spent the next twelve years running
his own version of an academy, which was called the Lyceum, named after the place

9
in Athens where it was located, an old temple of Apollo. (French high schools are
named lycee after Aristotle’s establishment.) Aristotle’s preferred mode of operation
was to spend a lot of time walking around talking with his colleagues, then write
down his arguments. The Aristotelians are often called the Peripatetics: people who
walk around.

Aristotle wrote extensively on all subjects: politics, metaphysics, ethics, logic and
science. He didn’t care for Plato’s rather communal Utopia, in which the women were
shared by the men, and the children raised by everybody, because for one thing he
feared the children would be raised by nobody. His ideal society was one run by
cultured gentlemen. He saw nothing wrong with slavery, provided the slave was
naturally inferior to the master, so slaves should not be Greeks. This all sounds
uncomfortably similar to Jefferson’s Virginia, perhaps not too surprising since Greek
was a central part of a gentleman’s education in Jefferson’s day.

Aristotle’s Science
Aristotle’s approach to science differed from Plato’s. He agreed that the highest
human faculty was reason, and its supreme activity was contemplation. However, in
addition to studying what he called “first philosophy” - metaphysics and mathematics,
the things Plato had worked on, Aristotle thought it also very important to study
“second philosophy”: the world around us, from physics and mechanics to biology.
Perhaps being raised in the house of a physician had given him an interest in living
things.

What he achieved in those years in Athens was to begin a school of organized

scientific inquiry on a scale far exceeding anything that had gone before. He first
clearly defined what was scientific knowledge, and why it should be sought. In other
words, he single-handedly invented science as the collective, organized enterprise it is
today. Plato’s Academy had the equivalent of a university mathematics department,
Aristotle had the first science department, truly excellent in biology, but, as we shall
see, a little weak in physics. After Aristotle, there was no comparable professional
science enterprise for over 2,000 years, and his work was of such quality that it was
accepted by all, and had long been a part of the official orthodoxy of the Christian
Church 2,000 years later. This was unfortunate, because when Galileo questioned
some of the assertions concerning simple physics, he quickly found himself in serious
trouble with the Church.

Aristotle’s Method
Aristotle’s method of investigation varied from one natural science to another,
depending on the problems encountered, but it usually included:

1. defining the subject matter

2. considering the difficulties involved by reviewing the generally accepted
views on the subject, and suggestions of earlier writers
3. presenting his own arguments and solutions.

10
Again, this is the pattern modern research papers follow, Aristotle was laying down
the standard professional approach to scientific research. The arguments he used were
of two types: dialectical, that is, based on logical deduction; and empirical, based on
practical considerations.

Aristotle often refuted an opposing argument by showing that it led to an absurd

conclusion, this is called reductio ad absurdum (reducing something to absurdity). As
we shall see later, Galileo used exactly this kind of argument against Aristotle
himself, to the great annoyance of Aristotelians 2,000 years after Aristotle.

Another possibility was that an argument led to a dilemma: an apparent contradiction.

However, dilemmas could sometimes be resolved by realizing that there was some
ambiguity in a definition, say, so precision of definitions and usage of terms is
essential to productive discussion in any discipline.

“Causes”
In contrast to Plato, who felt the only worthwhile science to be the contemplation of
abstract forms, Aristotle practiced detailed observation and dissection of plants and
animals, to try to understand how each fitted into the grand scheme of nature, and the
importance of the different organs of animals. His motivation is made clear by the
following quote from him (in Lloyd, p105):

For even in those kinds [of animals] that are not attractive to the senses, yet to the
intellect the craftsmanship of nature provides extraordinary pleasures for those who
can recognize the causes in things and who are naturally inclined to philosophy.

His study of nature was a search for “causes.” What, exactly are these “causes”? He
gave some examples (we follow Lloyd’s discussion here). He stated that any object
(animal, plant, inanimate, whatever) had four attributes:

• matter

• form

• moving cause

• final cause

For a table, the matter is wood, the form is the shape, the moving cause is the
carpenter and the final cause is the reason the table was made in the first place, for a
family to eat at, for example. For man, he thought the matter was provided by the
mother, the form was a rational two-legged animal, the moving cause was the father
and the final cause was to become a fully grown human being. He did not believe
nature to be conscious, he believed this final cause to be somehow innate in a human
being, and similarly in other organisms. Of course, fulfilling this final cause is not
inevitable, some accident may intervene, but apart from such exceptional
circumstances, nature is regular and orderly.

11
To give another example of this central concept, he thought the “final cause” of an
acorn was to be an oak tree. This has also been translated by Bertrand Russell
(History of Western Philosophy) as the “nature” of an acorn is to become an oak tree.
It is certainly very natural on viewing the living world, especially the maturing of
complex organisms, to view them as having innately the express purpose of
developing into their final form.

It is interesting to note that this whole approach to studying nature fits very well with
Christianity. The idea that every organism is beautifully crafted for a particular
function - its “final cause” - in the grand scheme of nature certainly leads naturally to
the thought that all this has been designed by somebody.

Biology
Aristotle’s really great contribution to natural science was in biology. Living creatures
and their parts provide far richer evidence of form, and of “final cause” in the sense of
design for a particular purpose, than do inanimate objects. He wrote in detail about
five hundred different animals in his works, including a hundred and twenty kinds of
fish and sixty kinds of insect. He was the first to use dissection extensively. In one
famous example, he gave a precise description of a kind of dog-fish that was not seen
again by scientists until the nineteenth century, and in fact his work on this point was
disbelieved for centuries.

Thus both Aristotle and Plato saw in the living creatures around them overwhelming
evidence for “final causes”, that is to say, evidence for design in nature, a different
design for each species to fit it for its place in the grand scheme of things.
Empedocles, on the other hand, suggested that maybe creatures of different types
could come together and produce mixed offspring, and those well adapted to their
surroundings would survive. This would seem like an early hint of Darwinism, but it
was not accepted, because as Aristotle pointed out, men begat men and oxen begat
oxen, and there was no evidence of the mixed creatures Empedocles suggested.

Although this idea of the “nature” of things accords well with growth of animals and
plants, it leads us astray when applied to the motion of inanimate objects, as we shall
see.

Elements
Aristotle’s theory of the basic constituents of matter looks to a modern scientist
perhaps something of a backward step from the work of the atomists and Plato.
Aristotle assumed all substances to be compounds of four elements: earth, water, air
and fire, and each of these to be a combination of two of four opposites, hot and cold,
and wet and dry. (Actually, the words he used for wet and dry also have the
connotation of softness and hardness).

Aristotle’s whole approach is more in touch with the way things present themselves to
the senses, the way things really seem to be, as opposed to abstract geometric
considerations. Hot and cold, wet and dry are qualities immediately apparent to
anyone, this seems a very natural way to describe phenomena. He probably thought

12
that the Platonic approach in terms of abstract concepts, which do not seem to relate
to our physical senses but to our reason, was a completely wrongheaded way to go
about the problem. It has turned out, centuries later, that the atomic and mathematical
approach was on the right track after all, but at the time, and in fact until relatively
recently, Aristotle seemed a lot closer to reality. He discussed the properties of real
substances in terms of their “elemental” composition at great length, how they reacted
to fire or water, how, for example, water evaporates on heating because it goes from
cold and wet to hot and wet, becoming air, in his view. Innumerable analyses along
these lines of commonly observed phenomena must have made this seem a coherent
approach to understanding the natural world.

Dynamics: Motion, And Why Things Move

It is first essential to realize that the world Aristotle saw around him in everyday life
was very different indeed from that we see today. Every modern child has since birth
seen cars and planes moving around, and soon finds out that these things are not alive,
like people and animals. In contrast, most of the motion seen in fourth century Greece
was people, animals and birds, all very much alive. This motion all had a purpose, the
animal was moving to someplace it would rather be, for some reason, so the motion
was directed by the animal’s will. For Aristotle, this motion was therefore fulfilling
the “nature” of the animal, just as its natural growth fulfilled the nature of the animal.

To account for motion of things obviously not alive, such as a stone dropped from the
hand, he extended the concept of the “nature” of something to inanimate matter. He
suggested that the motion of such inanimate objects could be understood by
postulating that elements tend to seek their natural place in the order of things, so
earth moves downwards most strongly, water flows downwards too, but not so
strongly, since a stone will fall through water. In contrast, air moves up (bubbles in
water) and fire goes upwards most strongly of all, since it shoots upward through air.
This general theory of how elements move has to be elaborated, of course, when
applied to real materials, which are mixtures of elements. He would conclude that
wood, say, has both earth and air in it, since it does not sink in water.

Natural Motion and Violent Motion

Of course, things also sometimes move because they are pushed. A stone’s natural
tendency, if left alone and unsupported, is to fall, but we can lift it, or even throw it
through the air. Aristotle termed such forced motion “violent” motion as opposed to
natural motion. The term “violent” here connotes that some external force is applied
to the body to cause the motion. (Of course, from the modern point of view, gravity is
an external force that causes a stone to fall, but even Galileo did not realize that.
Before Newton, the falling of a stone was considered natural motion that did not
require any outside help.)

(Question: I am walking steadily upstairs carrying a large stone when I stumble and
both I and the stone go clattering down the stairs. Is the motion of the stone before the
stumble natural or violent? What about the motion of the stone (and myself) after the
stumble?)

13
Aristotle’s Laws of Motion
Aristotle was the first to think quantitatively about the speeds involved in these
movements. He made two quantitative assertions about how things fall (natural
motion):

1. Heavier things fall faster, the speed being proportional to the weight.
2. The speed of fall of a given object depends inversely on the density of the
medium it is falling through, so, for example, the same body will fall twice as
fast through a medium of half the density.

Notice that these rules have a certain elegance, an appealing quantitative simplicity.
And, if you drop a stone and a piece of paper, it’s clear that the heavier thing does fall
faster, and a stone falling through water is definitely slowed down by the water, so the
rules at first appear plausible. The surprising thing is, in view of Aristotle’s
painstaking observations of so many things, he didn’t check out these rules in any
serious way. It would not have taken long to find out if half a brick fell at half the
speed of a whole brick, for example. Obviously, this was not something he considered
important.

From the second assertion above, he concluded that a vacuum cannot exist, because if
it did, since it has zero density, all bodies would fall through it at infinite speed which
is clearly nonsense.

For violent motion, Aristotle stated that the speed of the moving object was in direct
proportion to the applied force.

This means first that if you stop pushing, the object stops moving. This certainly
sounds like a reasonable rule for, say, pushing a box of books across a carpet, or a
Grecian ox dragging a plough through a field. (This intuitively appealing picture,
however, fails to take account of the large frictional force between the box and the
carpet. If you put the box on a sled and pushed it across ice, it wouldn’t stop when
you stop pushing. Galileo realized the importance of friction in these situations.)

Planetary Dynamics
The idea that motion (of inanimate objects) can be accounted for in terms of them
seeking their natural place clearly cannot be applied to the planets, whose motion is
apparently composed of circles. Aristotle therefore postulated that the heavenly
bodies were not made up of the four elements earth, water, air and fire, but of a fifth,
different, element called aither, whose natural motion was circular. This was not very
satisfying for various reasons. Somewhere between here and the moon a change must
take place, but where? Recall that Aristotle did not believe that there was a void
anywhere. If the sun has no heat component, why does sunlight seem so warm? He
thought it somehow generated heat by friction from the sun’s motion, but this wasn’t
very convincing, either.

Aristotle’s Achievements

14
To summarize: Aristotle’s philosophy laid out an approach to the investigation of all
natural phenomena, to determine form by detailed, systematic work, and thus arrive at
final causes. His logical method of argument gave a framework for putting knowledge
together, and deducing new results. He created what amounted to a fully-fledged
professional scientific enterprise, on a scale comparable to a modern university
science department. It must be admitted that some of his work - unfortunately, some
of the physics - was not up to his usual high standards. He evidently found falling
stones a lot less interesting than living creatures. Yet the sheer scale of his enterprise,
unmatched in antiquity and for centuries to come, gave an authority to all his writings.

It is perhaps worth reiterating the difference between Plato and Aristotle, who agreed
with each other that the world is the product of rational design, that the philosopher
investigates the form and the universal, and that the only true knowledge is that which
is irrefutable. The essential difference between them was that Plato felt mathematical
reasoning could arrive at the truth with little outside help, but Aristotle believed
detailed empirical investigations of nature were essential if progress was to be made
in understanding the natural world.

Books I used to prepare this lecture:

Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, G. E. R. Lloyd, Norton, N.Y., 1970. An

excellent inexpensive paperback giving a more detailed presentation of many of the
subjects we have discussed. My sections on Method and Causes, in particular, follow
Lloyd’s treatment.

History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell. An opinionated but very

entertaining book, mainly on philosophy but with a fair amount of science and social
analysis.

previous index next PDF

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/aristot2.html

Plato
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Plato (disambiguation) and Platon (disambiguation).
Plato (Πλάτων)

Plato: copy of portrait bust by

FPlato (Πλάτων)

15
u
l
l

n
a
m
e

B
c. 428–427 BC
oAthens
r
n

D
c. 348–347 BC (age approx 80)
iAthens
e
d

E
Ancient philosophy
r
a

Regio Western
n Philosophy
SchoolPlatonism

M
Rhetoric
a
i
n

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

16
s

N
Platonic realism
o
t
a
b
l
e

i
d
e
a
s

Influenced by

Influenced

Part of a series on

Plato

Early life · Works

Platonism · Epistemology
Idealism / Realism
Theory of Forms
Form of the Good
Third man argument
Euthyphro dilemma
Five regimes
Philosopher king

Allegories and metaphors

17
Ring of Gyges · The cave
The divided line · The sun
Ship of state · Myth of Er
The chariot

Related articles

The Academy in Athens

Socratic problem
Commentaries on Plato
Middle Platonism
Neoplatonism
Neoplatonism and Christianity

v•d•e

Plato (English pronunciation: /ˈpleɪtoʊ/; Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn, "broad"[2]; 428/427

BC[a] – 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of
philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of
higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his
student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and
science.[3] Plato was originally a student of Socrates, and was as much influenced by
his thinking as by his apparently unjust execution.

Plato's sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-six

dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him. Plato's writings have been
published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming
and referencing of Plato's texts.

Plato's dialogues have been used to teach a range of subjects, including philosophy,
logic, rhetoric and mathematics.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Biography
o 1.1 Early life
 1.1.1 Birth and family
 1.1.2 Name
 1.1.3 Education
o 1.2 Later life
o 1.3 Plato and Socrates

18
 • 2 Philosophy
o 2.1 Recurrent themes
o 2.2 Metaphysics
o 2.3 Theory of Forms
o 2.4 Epistemology
o 2.5 The State
o 2.6 Unwritten Doctrine
• 3 Works
o 3.1 Composition of the dialogues
o 3.2 Narration of the dialogues
o 3.3 Trial of Socrates
o 3.4 Unity and Diversity of the Dialogues
o 3.5 Platonic Scholarship
o 3.6 Text history
• 4 Criticism
• 5 See also
• 6 Notes
• 7 Footnotes
• 8 References
o 8.1 Primary sources (Greek and Roman)
o 8.2 Secondary sources
• 9 Further reading

• 10 External links

Biography
Early life
Main article: Early life of Plato

Birth and family

The definite place and time of Plato's birth are not known, but what is certain is that
he belonged to an aristocratic and influential family. Based on ancient sources, most
modern scholars believe that he was born in Athens or Aegina[b] between 429 and 423
BC.[a] His father was Ariston. According to a disputed tradition, reported by Diogenes
Laertius, Ariston traced his descent from the king of Athens, Codrus, and the king of
Messenia, Melanthus.[4] Plato's mother was Perictione, whose family boasted of a
relationship with the famous Athenian lawmaker and lyric poet Solon.[5] Perictione
was sister of Charmides and niece of Critias, both prominent figures of the Thirty
Tyrants, the brief oligarchic regime, which followed on the collapse of Athens at the
end of the Peloponnesian War (404-403 BC).[6] Besides Plato himself, Ariston and
Perictione had three other children; these were two sons, Adeimantus and Glaucon,
and a daughter Potone, the mother of Speusippus (the nephew and successor of Plato
as head of his philosophical Academy).[6] According to the Republic, Adeimantus and
Glaucon were older than Plato.[7] Nevertheless, in his Memorabilia, Xenophon
presents Glaucon as younger than Plato.[8]

19
Ariston tried to force his attentions on Perictione, but failed of his purpose; then the
ancient Greek god Apollo appeared to him in a vision, and, as a result of it, Ariston
left Perictione unmolested.[9] Another legend related that, while he was sleeping as an
infant, bees had settled on the lips of Plato; an augury of the sweetness of style in
which he would discourse philosophy.[10]

Ariston appears to have died in Plato's childhood, although the precise dating of his
death is difficult.[11] Perictione then married Pyrilampes, her mother's brother,[12] who
had served many times as an ambassador to the Persian court and was a friend of
Pericles, the leader of the democratic faction in Athens.[13] Pyrilampes had a son from
a previous marriage, Demus, who was famous for his beauty.[14] Perictione gave birth
to Pyrilampes' second son, Antiphon, the half-brother of Plato, who appears in
Parmenides.[15]

In contrast to his reticence about himself, Plato used to introduce his distinguished
relatives into his dialogues, or to mention them with some precision: Charmides has
one named after him; Critias speaks in both Charmides and Protagoras; Adeimantus
and Glaucon take prominent parts in the Republic.[16] From these and other references
one can reconstruct his family tree, and this suggests a considerable amount of family
pride. According to Burnet, "the opening scene of the Charmides is a glorification of
the whole [family] connection ... Plato's dialogues are not only a memorial to
Socrates, but also the happier days of his own family".[17]

Name

According to Diogenes Laërtius, the philosopher was named Aristocles after his
grandfather, but his wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, dubbed him "Platon", meaning
"broad," on account of his robust figure.[18] According to the sources mentioned by
Diogenes (all dating from the Alexandrian period), Plato derived his name from the
breadth (platytês) of his eloquence, or else because he was very wide (platýs) across
the forehead.[19] In the 21st century some scholars disputed Diogenes, and argued that
the legend about his name being Aristocles originated in the Hellenistic age.[c]

Education

Apuleius informs us that Speusippus praised Plato's quickness of mind and modesty
as a boy, and the "first fruits of his youth infused with hard work and love of study".
[20]
Plato must have been instructed in grammar, music, and gymnastics by the most
distinguished teachers of his time.[21] Dicaearchus went so far as to say that Plato
wrestled at the Isthmian games.[22] Plato had also attended courses of philosophy;
before meeting Socrates, he first became acquainted with Cratylus (a disciple of
Heraclitus, a prominent pre-Socratic Greek philosopher) and the Heraclitean
doctrines.[23]

Later life

Plato may have traveled in Italy, Sicily, Egypt and Cyrene.[24] Said to have returned to
Athens at the age of forty, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools
in Western Civilization on a plot of land in the Grove of Hecademus or Academus.[25]
The Academy was "a large enclosure of ground that was once the property of a citizen

20
at Athens named Academus... some, however, say that it received its name from an
ancient hero",[26] and it operated until AD 529, when it was closed by Justinian I of
Byzantium, who saw it as a threat to the propagation of Christianity. Many
intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Aristotle.
[27]

Throughout his later life, Plato became entangled with the politics of Syracuse.
According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato initially visited Syracuse while it was under the
rule of Dionysus. During this first trip Dionysus's brother-in-law, Dion of Syracuse,
became one of Plato's disciples, but the tyrant himself turned against Plato. Plato was
sold into slavery and almost faced death in Cyrene, a city at war with Athens, before
an admirer bought Plato's freedom and sent him home. After Dionysius's death,
according to Plato's Seventh Letter, Dion requested Plato return to Syracuse to tutor
Dionysus II and guide him to become a philosopher king. Dionysius II seemed to
accept Plato's teachings, but he became suspicious of Dion, his uncle. Dionysus
expelled Dion and kept Plato against his will. Eventually Plato left Syracuse. Dion
would return to overthrow Dionysus and ruled Syracuse for a short time before being
usurped by Calippus, a fellow disciple of Plato.

Plato and Socrates

Plato and Socrates in a medieval depiction

The precise relationship between Plato and Socrates remains an area of contention
among scholars. Plato makes it clear, especially in his Apology of Socrates, that he
was Socrates' most devoted young follower. In that dialogue, Socrates is presented as
mentioning Plato by name as one of those youths close enough to him to have been
corrupted, if he were in fact guilty of corrupting the youth, and questioning why their
fathers and brothers did not step forward to testify against him if he was indeed guilty
of such a crime (33d-34a). Later, Plato is mentioned along with Crito, Critobolus, and
Apollodorus as offering to pay a fine of 30 minas on Socrates' behalf, in lieu of the
death penalty proposed by Meletus (38b). In the Phaedo, the title character lists those
who were in attendance at the prison on Socrates' last day, explaining Plato's absence
by saying, "Plato was ill" (Phaedo 59b).

Plato never speaks in his own voice in his dialogues. In the Second Letter, it says, "no
writing of Plato exists or ever will exist, but those now said to be his are those of a
Socrates become beautiful and new" (341c); if the Letter is Plato's, the final
qualification seems to call into question the dialogues' historical fidelity. In any case,
Xenophon and Aristophanes seem to present a somewhat different portrait of Socrates
than Plato paints. Some have called attention to the problem of taking Plato's Socrates
to be his mouthpiece, given Socrates' reputation for irony.[28]

Aristotle attributes a different doctrine with respect to the ideas to Plato and Socrates
(Metaphysics 987b1–11). Putting it in a nutshell, Aristotle merely suggests that his
idea of forms can be discovered through investigation of the natural world, unlike
Plato's Forms that exist beyond and outside the ordinary range of human
understanding.

21
Philosophy
Recurrent themes

Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael.
Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge through empirical
observation and experience, while holding a copy of his Nicomachean Ethics in his
hand. Plato holds his Timaeus and gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in
The Forms

Plato often discusses the father-son relationship and the "question" of whether a
father's interest in his sons has much to do with how well his sons turn out. A boy in
ancient Athens was socially located by his family identity, and Plato often refers to
his characters in terms of their paternal and fraternal relationships. Socrates was not a
family man, and saw himself as the son of his mother, who was apparently a midwife.
A divine fatalist, Socrates mocks men who spent exorbitant fees on tutors and trainers
for their sons, and repeatedly ventures the idea that good character is a gift from the
gods. Crito reminds Socrates that orphans are at the mercy of chance, but Socrates is
unconcerned. In the Theaetetus, he is found recruiting as a disciple a young man
whose inheritance has been squandered. Socrates twice compares the relationship of
the older man and his boy lover to the father-son relationship (Lysis 213a, Republic
3.403b), and in the Phaedo, Socrates' disciples, towards whom he displays more
concern than his biological sons, say they will feel "fatherless" when he is gone.

In several dialogues, Socrates floats the idea that Knowledge is a matter of

recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.[29] He maintains this view
somewhat at his own expense, because in many dialogues, Socrates complains of his
forgetfulness. Socrates is often found arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and
that it comes from divine insight. In many middle period dialogues, such as the
Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus Plato advocates a belief in the immortality of the
soul, and several dialogues end with long speeches imagining the afterlife. More than
one dialogue contrasts knowledge and opinion, perception and reality, nature and
custom, and body and soul.

Several dialogues tackle questions about art: Socrates says that poetry is inspired by
the muses, and is not rational. He speaks approvingly of this, and other forms of
divine madness (drunkenness, eroticism, and dreaming) in the Phaedrus (265a–c),
and yet in the Republic wants to outlaw Homer's great poetry, and laughter as well. In
Ion, Socrates gives no hint of the disapproval of Homer that he expresses in the
Republic. The dialogue Ion suggests that Homer's Iliad functioned in the ancient
Greek world as the Bible does today in the modern Christian world: as divinely
inspired literature that can provide moral guidance, if only it can be properly
interpreted.

On politics and art, religion and science, justice and medicine, virtue and vice, crime
and punishment, pleasure and pain, rhetoric and rhapsody, human nature and
sexuality, love and wisdom, Socrates and his company of disputants had something to
say.

22
Metaphysics
Main article: Platonic realism

"Platonism" is a term coined by scholars to refer to the intellectual consequences of

denying, as Socrates often does, the reality of the material world. In several dialogues,
most notably the Republic, Socrates inverts the common man's intuition about what is
knowable and what is real. While most people take the objects of their senses to be
real if anything is, Socrates is contemptuous of people who think that something has
to be graspable in the hands to be real. In the Theaetetus, he says such people are "eu
a-mousoi", an expression that means literally, "happily without the muses"
(Theaetetus 156a). In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that
gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality.

Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts
him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he
who sees with his eyes is blind, and this idea is most famously captured in his
allegory of the cave, and more explicitly in his description of the divided line. The
allegory of the cave (begins Republic 7.514a) is a paradoxical analogy wherein
Socrates argues that the invisible world is the most intelligible ("noeton") and that the
visible world ("(h)oraton") is the least knowable, and the most obscure.

Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to
be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. Socrates admits
that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those who do, not only have a
terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go back down for a visit or to
help other people up, they find themselves objects of scorn and ridicule.

According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are "shadows" of their
ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they instantiate the perfect
versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential
epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting
phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere
instances. For example, Socrates thinks that perfect justice exists (although it is not
clear where) and his own trial would be a cheap copy of it.

The allegory of the cave (often said by scholars to represent Plato's own epistemology
and metaphysics) is intimately connected to his political ideology (often said to also
be Plato's own), that only people who have climbed out of the cave and cast their eyes
on a vision of goodness are fit to rule. Socrates claims that the enlightened men of
society must be forced from their divine contemplations and compelled to run the city
according to their lofty insights. Thus is born the idea of the "philosopher-king", the
wise person who accepts the power thrust upon him by the people who are wise
enough to choose a good master. This is the main thesis of Socrates in the Republic,
that the most wisdom the masses can muster is the wise choice of a ruler.

The word metaphysics derives from the fact that Aristotle's musings about divine
reality came after ("meta") his lecture notes on his treatise on nature ("physics"). The
term is in fact applied to Aristotle's own teacher, and Plato's "metaphysics" is
understood as Socrates' division of reality into the warring and irreconcilable domains

23
of the material and the spiritual. The theory has been of incalculable influence in the
history of Western philosophy and religion.

Theory of Forms
Main article: Theory of Forms

The Theory of Forms (Greek: ιδέες) typically refers to the belief expressed by
Socrates in some of Plato's dialogues, that the material world as it seems to us is not
the real world, but only an image or copy of the real world. Socrates spoke of forms in
formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates,
are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of
things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason
(Greek: λογική); (that is, they are universals). In other words, Socrates sometimes
seems to recognise two worlds: the apparent world which is constantly changing, and
an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may perhaps be a cause of what is
apparent.

Epistemology
Main article: Platonic epistemology

Many have interpreted Plato as stating that knowledge is justified true belief, an
influential view that informed future developments in modern analytic epistemology.
This interpretation is based on a reading of the Theaetetus wherein Plato argues that
belief is to be distinguished from knowledge on account of justification. Many years
later, Edmund Gettier famously demonstrated the problems of the justified true belief
account of knowledge. This interpretation, however, imports modern analytic and
empiricist categories onto Plato himself and is better read on its own terms than as
Plato's view.

Really, in the Sophist, Statesman, Republic, and the Parmenides Plato himself
associates knowledge with the apprehension of unchanging Forms and their
relationships to one another (which he calls "expertise" in Dialectic). More explicitly,
Plato himself argues in the Timaeus that knowledge is always proportionate to the
realm from which it is gained. In other words, if one derives one's account of
something experientially, because the world of sense is in flux, the views therein
attained will be mere opinions. And opinions are characterized by a lack of necessity
and stability. On the other hand, if one derives one's account of something by way of
the non-sensible forms, because these forms are unchanging, so too is the account
derived from them. It is only in this sense that Plato uses the term "knowledge".

In the Meno, Socrates uses a geometrical example to expound Plato's view that
knowledge in this latter sense is acquired by recollection. Socrates elicits a fact
concerning a geometrical construction from a slave boy, who could not have
otherwise known the fact (due to the slave boy's lack of education). The knowledge
must be present, Socrates concludes, in an eternal, non-experiential form.

The State

24
Papirus Oxyrhynchus, with fragment of Plato's Republic

Plato's philosophical views had many societal implications, especially on the idea of
an ideal state or government. There is some discrepancy between his early and later
views. Some of the most famous doctrines are contained in the Republic during his
middle period, as well as in the Laws and the Statesman. However, because Plato
wrote dialogues, it is assumed that Socrates is often speaking for Plato. This
assumption may not be true in all cases.

Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that societies have a tripartite class
structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the individual soul.
The appetite/spirit/reason stand for different parts of the body. The body parts
symbolize the castes of society.[30]

• Productive, which represents the abdomen. (Workers) — the labourers,

carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These
correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
• Protective, which represents the chest. (Warriors or Guardians) — those who
are adventurous, strong and brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to
the "spirit" part of the soul.
• Governing, which represents the head. (Rulers or Philosopher Kings) — those
who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited
to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of
the soul and are very few.

According to this model, the principles of Athenian democracy (as it existed in his
day) are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato
says reason and wisdom should govern. As Plato puts it:

"Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and
leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is, until political
power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at
present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so,
cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race."
(Republic 473c-d)

Plato in his academy, drawing after a painting by Swedish painter Carl Johan
Wahlbom

Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth"
(Republic 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a
doctor and his medicine. According to him, sailing and health are not things that
everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the Republic then addresses
how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.

However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the Republic is
qualified by Socrates as the ideal luxurious city, examined to determine how it is that
injustice and justice grow in a city (Republic 372e). According to Socrates, the "true"
and "healthy" city is instead the one first outlined in book II of the Republic, 369c–

25
372d, containing farmers, craftsmen, merchants, and wage-earners, but lacking the
guardian class of philosopher-kings as well as delicacies such as "perfumed oils,
incense, prostitutes, and pastries", in addition to paintings, gold, ivory, couches, a
multitude of occupations such as poets and hunters, and war.

In addition, the ideal city is used as an image to illuminate the state of one's soul, or
the will, reason, and desires combined in the human body. Socrates is attempting to
make an image of a rightly ordered human, and then later goes on to describe the
different kinds of humans that can be observed, from tyrants to lovers of money in
various kinds of cities. The ideal city is not promoted, but only used to magnify the
different kinds of individual humans and the state of their soul. However, the
philosopher king image was used by many after Plato to justify their personal political
beliefs. The philosophic soul according to Socrates has reason, will, and desires
united in virtuous harmony. A philosopher has the moderate love for wisdom and the
courage to act according to wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge about the Good or the
right relations between all that exists.

Wherein it concerns states and rulers, Plato has made interesting arguments. For
instance he asks which is better—a bad democracy or a country reigned by a tyrant.
He argues that it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant, than be a bad democracy (since
here all the people are now responsible for such actions, rather than one individual
committing many bad deeds.) This is emphasised within the Republic as Plato
describes the event of mutiny onboard a ship.[31] Plato suggests the ships crew to be in
line with the democratic rule of many and the captain, although inhibited through
ailments, the tyrant. Plato's description of this event is parallel to that of democracy
within the state and the inherent problems that arise.

According to Plato, a state made up of different kinds of souls will, overall, decline
from an aristocracy (rule by the best) to a timocracy (rule by the honorable), then to
an oligarchy (rule by the few), then to a democracy (rule by the people), and finally to
tyranny (rule by one person, rule by a tyrant)[citation needed].

Unwritten Doctrine

For a long time Plato's unwritten doctrine[32][33][34] had been considered unworthy of
attention. Most of the books on Plato seem to diminish its importance. Nevertheless
the first important witness who mentions its existence is Aristotle, who in his Physics
(209 b) writes: "It is true, indeed, that the account he gives there [i.e. in Timaeus] of
the participant is different from what he says in his so-called unwritten teaching
(ἄγραφα δόγματα)." The term ἄγραφα δόγματα literally means unwritten doctrine and
it stands for the most fundamental metaphysical teaching of Plato, which he disclosed
only to his most trusted fellows and kept secret from the public.

The reason for not revealing it to everyone is partially discussed in Phaedrus (276 c)
where Plato criticizes the written transmission of knowledge as faulty, favoring
instead the spoken logos: "he who has knowledge of the just and the good and
beautiful ... will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen
with words, which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth
effectually." The same argument is repeated in Plato's Seventh Letter (344 c): "every
serious man in dealing with really serious subjects carefully avoids writing." In the

26
same letter he writes (341 c): "I can certainly declare concerning all these writers who
claim to know the subjects that I seriously study ... there does not exist, nor will there
ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith." Such secrecy is necessary in order
not "to expose them to unseemly and degrading treatment" (344 d).

It is however said that Plato once disclosed this knowledge to the public in his lecture
On the Good (Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ), in which the Good (τὸ ἀγαθόν) is identified with the
One (the Unity, τὸ ἕν), the fundamental ontological principle. The content of this
lecture has been transmitted by several witnesses, among others Aristoxenus who
describes the event in the following words: "Each came expecting to learn something
about the things that are generally considered good for men, such as wealth, good
health, physical strength, and altogether a kind of wonderful happiness. But when the
mathematical demonstrations came, including numbers, geometrical figures and
astronomy, and finally the statement Good is One seemed to them, I imagine, utterly
unexpected and strange; hence some belittled the matter, while others rejected it."
Simplicius quotes Alexander of Aphrodisias who states that "according to Plato, the
first principles of everything, including the Forms themselves are One and Indefinite
Duality (ἡ ἀόριστος δυάς), which he called Large and Small (τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ
μικρόν) ... one might also learn this from Speusippus and Xenocrates and the others
who were present at Plato's lecture on the Good"

Their account is in full agreement with Aristotle's description of Plato's metaphysical

doctrine. In Metaphysics he writes: "Now since the Forms are the causes of
everything else, he [i.e. Plato] supposed that their elements are the elements of all
things. Accordingly the material principle is the Great and Small [i.e. the Dyad], and
the essence is the One (τὸ ἕν), since the numbers are derived from the Great and
Small by participation in the One" (987 b). "From this account it is clear that he only
employed two causes: that of the essence, and the material cause; for the Forms are
the cause of the essence in everything else, and the One is the cause of it in the Forms.
He also tells us what the material substrate is of which the Forms are predicated in the
case of sensible things, and the One in that of the Forms - that it is this the duality (the
Dyad, ἡ δυάς), the Great and Small (τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρόν). Further, he assigned to
these two elements respectively the causation of good and of evil" (988 a).

The most important aspect of this interpretation of Plato's metaphysics is the

continuity between his teaching and the neoplatonic interpretation of Plotinus[35] or
Ficino[36] which has been considered erroneous by many but may in fact have been
directly influenced by oral transmission of Plato's doctrine. A modern scholar who
recognized the importance of the unwritten doctrine of Plato was Heinrich Gomperz
who described it in his speech during the 7th International Congress of Philosophy in
1930.[37] All the sources related to the ἄγραφα δόγματα have been collected by
Konrad Gaiser and published as Testimonia Platonica.[38] These sources have
subsequently been interpreted by scholars from the German Tübingen School such as
Hans Joachim Krämer or Thomas A. Szlezák.[39]

Works

Part of the series on:

27
The Dialogues of Plato

Early dialogues:

Apology – Charmides – Crito

Euthyphro – First Alcibiades

Hippias Major – Hippias Minor

Ion – Laches – Lysis

Transitional & middle dialogues:

Cratylus – Euthydemus – Gorgias

Menexenus – Meno – Phaedo

Protagoras – Symposium

Later middle dialogues:

Republic – Phaedrus

Parmenides – Theaetetus

Late dialogues:

Clitophon – Timaeus – Critias

Sophist – Statesman

Philebus – Laws

Of Doubtful Authenticity:

Axiochus – Demodocus

Epinomis – Epistles – Eryxias

Halcyon – Hipparchus – Minos

Rival Lovers – Second Alcibiades

Sisyphus – Theages

This box: view • talk • edit

28
Thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have traditionally been ascribed to Plato,
though modern scholarship doubts the authenticity of at least some of these. Plato's
writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions
regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts.

The usual system for making unique references to sections of the text by Plato derives
from a 16th century edition of Plato's works by Henricus Stephanus. An overview of
Plato's writings according to this system can be found in the Stephanus pagination
article.

One tradition regarding the arrangement of Plato's texts is according to tetralogies.

This scheme is ascribed by Diogenes Laertius to an ancient scholar and court
astrologer to Tiberius named Thrasyllus.

In the list below, works by Plato are marked (1) if there is no consensus among
scholars as to whether Plato is the author, and (2) if most scholars agree that Plato is
not the author of the work. Unmarked works are assumed to have been written by
Plato.[40]

• I. Euthyphro, (The) Apology (of Socrates), Crito, Phaedo

• II. Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman
• III. Parmenides, Philebus, (The) Symposium, Phaedrus
• IV. First Alcibiades (1), Second Alcibiades (2), Hipparchus (2), (The) (Rival)
Lovers (2)
• V. Theages (2), Charmides, Laches, Lysis
• VI. Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
• VII. (Greater) Hippias (major) (1), (Lesser) Hippias (minor), Ion, Menexenus
• VIII. Clitophon (1), (The) Republic, Timaeus, Critias
• IX. Minos (2), (The) Laws, Epinomis (2), Epistles (1).

The remaining works were transmitted under Plato's name, most of them already
considered spurious in antiquity, and so were not included by Thrasyllus in his
tetralogical arrangement. These works are labelled as Notheuomenoi ("spurious") or
Apocrypha.

• Axiochus (2), Definitions (2), Demodocus (2), Epigrams (2), Eryxias (2),
Halcyon (2), On Justice (2), On Virtue (2), Sisyphus (2).

Composition of the dialogues

No one knows the exact order Plato's dialogues were written in, nor the extent to
which some might have been later revised and rewritten.

Lewis Campbell was the first[41] to make exhaustive use of stylometry to prove
objectively that the Critias, Timaeus, Laws, Philebus, Sophist, and Statesman were all
clustered together as a group, while the Parmenides, Phaedrus, Republic, and
Theaetetus belong to a separate group, which must be earlier (given Aristotle's
statement in his Politics[42] that the Laws was written after the Republic; cf. Diogenes
Laertius Lives 3.37). What is remarkable about Campbell's conclusions is that, in spite
of all the stylometric studies that have been conducted since his time, perhaps the only

29
chronological fact about Plato's works that can now be said to be proven by
stylometry is the fact that Critias, Timaeus, Laws, Philebus, Sophist, and Statesman
are the latest of Plato's dialogues, the others earlier.[43]

Increasingly in the most recent Plato scholarship, writers are skeptical of the notion
that the order of Plato's writings can be established with any precision,[44] though
Plato's works are still often characterized as falling at least roughly into three groups.
[45]
The following represents one relatively common such division.[46] It should,
however, be kept in mind that many of the positions in the ordering are still highly
disputed, and also that the very notion that Plato's dialogues can or should be
"ordered" is by no means universally accepted.

Among those who classify the dialogues into periods of composition, Socrates figures
in all of the "early dialogues" and they are considered the most faithful
representations of the historical Socrates.[citation needed] They include The Apology of
Socrates, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Ion, Laches, Less Hippias, Lysis, Menexenus,
and Protagoras (often considered one of the last of the "early dialogues"). Three
dialogues are often considered "transitional" or "pre-middle": Euthydemus, Gorgias,
and Meno.[citation needed]

Whereas those classified as "early dialogues" often conclude in aporia, the so-called
"middle dialogues" provide more clearly stated positive teachings that are often
ascribed to Plato such as the theory of forms.[citation needed] These dialogues include
Cratylus, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, Symposium, Parmenides, and Theaetetus.[citation
needed]
Proponents of dividing the dialogues into periods often consider the Parmenides
and Theaetetus to come late in this period and be transitional to the next, as they seem
to treat the theory of forms critically (Parmenides) or not at all (Theaetetus).[citation needed]

The remaining dialogues are classified as "late" and are generally agreed to be
difficult and challenging pieces of philosophy.[citation needed] This grouping is the only one
proven by stylometic analysis.[43] While looked to for Plato's "mature" answers to the
questions posed by his earlier works, those answers are difficult to discern. Some
scholars[who?] say that the theory of forms is absent from the late dialogues, its having
been refuted in the Parmenides, but there isn't total consensus that the Parmenides
actually refutes the theory of forms.[47] The so-called "late dialogues" include Critias,
Laws, Philebus, Sophist, Statesman, and Timaeus.[citation needed]

Narration of the dialogues

Plato never presents himself as a participant in any of the dialogues, and with the
exception of the Apology, there is no suggestion that he heard any of the dialogues
firsthand. Some dialogues have no narrator but have a pure "dramatic" form
(examples: Meno, Gorgias, Phaedrus, Crito, Euthyphro), some dialogues are narrated
by Socrates, wherein he speaks in first person (examples: Lysis, Charmides,
Republic). One dialogue, Protagoras, begins in dramatic form but quickly proceeds to
Socrates' narration of a conversation he had previously with the sophist for whom the
dialogue is named; this narration continues uninterrupted till the dialogue's end.

30
Plato's Symposium (Anselm Feuerbach, 1873)

Two dialogues Phaedo and Symposium also begin in dramatic form but then proceed
to virtually uninterrupted narration by followers of Socrates. Phaedo, an account of
Socrates' final conversation and hemlock drinking, is narrated by Phaedo to
Echecrates in a foreign city not long after the execution took place.[48] The Symposium
is narrated by Apollodorus, a Socratic disciple, apparently to Glaucon. Apollodorus
assures his listener that he is recounting the story, which took place when he himself
was an infant, not from his own memory, but as remembered by Aristodemus, who
told him the story years ago.

The Theaetetus is a peculiar case: a dialogue in dramatic form imbedded within

another dialogue in dramatic form. In the beginning of the Theaetetus (142c-143b),
Euclides says that he compiled the conversation from notes he took based on what
Socrates told him of his conversation with the title character. The rest of the
Theaetetus is presented as a "book" written in dramatic form and read by one of
Euclides' slaves (143c). Some scholars take this as an indication that Plato had by this
date wearied of the narrated form.[49] With the exception of the Theaetetus, Plato gives
no explicit indication as to how these orally transmitted conversations came to be
written down.

Trial of Socrates
Main article: Trial of Socrates

The trial of Socrates is the central, unifying event of the great Platonic dialogues.
Because of this, Plato's Apology is perhaps the most often read of the dialogues. In the
Apology, Socrates tries to dismiss rumors that he is a sophist and defends himself
against charges of disbelief in the gods and corruption of the young. Socrates insists
that long-standing slander will be the real cause of his demise, and says the legal
charges are essentially false. Socrates famously denies being wise, and explains how
his life as a philosopher was launched by the Oracle at Delphi. He says that his quest
to resolve the riddle of the oracle put him at odds with his fellow man, and that this is
the reason he has been mistaken for a menace to the city-state of Athens.

If Plato's important dialogues do not refer to Socrates' execution explicitly, they allude
to it, or use characters or themes that play a part in it. Five dialogues foreshadow the
trial: In the Theaetetus (210d) and the Euthyphro (2a–b) Socrates tells people that he
is about to face corruption charges. In the Meno (94e–95a), one of the men who
brings legal charges against Socrates, Anytus, warns him about the trouble he may get
into if he does not stop criticizing important people. In the Gorgias, Socrates says that
his trial will be like a doctor prosecuted by a cook who asks a jury of children to
choose between the doctor's bitter medicine and the cook's tasty treats (521e–522a). In
the Republic (7.517e), Socrates explains why an enlightened man (presumably
himself) will stumble in a courtroom situation. The Apology is Socrates' defense
speech, and the Crito and Phaedo take place in prison after the conviction. In the
Protagoras, Socrates is a guest at the home of Callias, son of Hipponicus, a man
whom Socrates disparages in the Apology as having wasted a great amount of money
on sophists' fees.

31
Unity and Diversity of the Dialogues

Two other important dialogues, the Symposium and the Phaedrus, are linked to the
main storyline by characters. In the Apology (19b, c), Socrates says Aristophanes
slandered him in a comic play, and blames him for causing his bad reputation, and
ultimately, his death. In the Symposium, the two of them are drinking together with
other friends. The character Phaedrus is linked to the main story line by character
(Phaedrus is also a participant in the Symposium and the Protagoras) and by theme
(the philosopher as divine emissary, etc.) The Protagoras is also strongly linked to the
Symposium by characters: all of the formal speakers at the Symposium (with the
exception of Aristophanes) are present at the home of Callias in that dialogue.
Charmides and his guardian Critias are present for the discussion in the Protagoras.
Examples of characters crossing between dialogues can be further multiplied. The
Protagoras contains the largest gathering of Socratic associates.

In the dialogues Plato is most celebrated and admired for, Socrates is concerned with
human and political virtue, has a distinctive personality, and friends and enemies who
"travel" with him from dialogue to dialogue. This is not to say that Socrates is
consistent: a man who is his friend in one dialogue may be an adversary or subject of
his mockery in another. For example, Socrates praises the wisdom of Euthyphro many
times in the Cratylus, but makes him look like a fool in the Euthyphro. He disparages
sophists generally, and Prodicus specifically in the Apology, whom he also slyly jabs
in the Cratylus for charging the hefty fee of fifty drachmas for a course on language
and grammar. However, Socrates tells Theaetetus in his namesake dialogue that he
admires Prodicus and has directed many pupils to him. Socrates' ideas are also not
consistent within or between or among dialogues.

Platonic Scholarship

"The safest general characterisation of the European philosophical tradition is that it

consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." (Alfred North Whitehead, Process and
Reality, 1929).

Plato's thought is often compared with that of his most famous student, Aristotle,
whose reputation during the Western Middle Ages so completely eclipsed that of
Plato that the Scholastic philosophers referred to Aristotle as "the Philosopher".
However, in the Byzantine Empire, the study of Plato continued.

The Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato, nor
the knowledge of Greek needed to read them. Plato's original writings were
essentially lost to Western civilization until they were brought from Constantinople in
the century of its fall, by George Gemistos Plethon. It is believed that Plethon passed
a copy of the Dialogues to Cosimo de' Medici when in 1438 the Council of Ferrara,
called to unify the Greek and Latin Churches, was adjourned to Florence, where
Plethon then lectured on the relation and differences of Plato and Aristotle, and fired
Cosimo with his enthusiasm.[citation needed] Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through
translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars.
These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by

32
writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works
(see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical

civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the
West. Many of the greatest early modern scientists and artists who broke with
Scholasticism and fostered the flowering of the Renaissance, with the support of the
Plato-inspired Lorenzo de Medici, saw Plato's philosophy as the basis for progress in
the arts and sciences. By the 19th century, Plato's reputation was restored, and at least
on par with Aristotle's.

Notable Western philosophers have continued to draw upon Plato's work since that
time. Plato's influence has been especially strong in mathematics and the sciences. He
helped to distinguish between pure and applied mathematics by widening the gap
between "arithmetic", now called Number Theory and "logistic", now called
arithmetic. He regarded logistic as appropriate for business men and men of war who
"must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops," while
arithmetic was appropriate for philosophers "because he has to arise out of the sea of
change and lay hold of true being."[50] Plato's resurgence further inspired some of the
greatest advances in logic since Aristotle, primarily through Gottlob Frege and his
followers Kurt Gödel, Alonzo Church, and Alfred Tarski; the last of these
summarised his approach by reversing the customary paraphrase of Aristotle's famous
declaration of sedition from the Academy (Nicomachean Ethics 1096a15), from
Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas ("Plato is a friend, but truth is a greater friend")
to Inimicus Plato sed magis inimica falsitas ("Plato is an enemy, but falsehood is a
greater enemy"). Albert Einstein drew on Plato's understanding of an immutable
reality that underlies the flux of appearances for his objections to the probabilistic
picture of the physical universe propounded by Niels Bohr in his interpretation of
quantum mechanics.[citation needed] Conversely, thinkers that diverged from ontological
models and moral ideals in their own philosophy, have tended to disparage Platonism
from more or less informed perspectives. Thus Friedrich Nietzsche attacked Plato's
moral and political theories, Martin Heidegger argued against Plato's alleged
obfuscation of Being, and Karl Popper argued in The Open Society and Its Enemies
(1945) that Plato's alleged proposal for a government system in the Republic was
prototypically totalitarian. Leo Strauss is considered by some as the prime thinker
involved in the recovery of Platonic thought in its more political, and less
metaphysical, form. Deeply influenced by Nietzsche and Heidegger, Strauss
nonetheless rejects their condemnation of Plato and looks to the dialogues for a
solution to what all three thinkers acknowledge as 'the crisis of the West.'

Text history

The oldest surviving manuscript for about half of Plato's dialogues is the Clarke Plato
(MS. E. D. Clarke 39), which was written in Constantinople in 895 and acquired by
Oxford University in 1809.[51]

Criticism

33
Friedrich Nietzsche set himself in direct opposition to Socrates and Plato, regarding
Plato especially as the fundamental source of nihilism in the West.[citation needed]

See also
• Cambridge Platonists
• List of speakers in Plato's dialogues
• Plato's tripartite theory of soul
• Platonic love
• Platonic realism
• Seventh Letter (Plato)
• Proclus (The Platonic successor)

Notes
a. ^ The grammarian Apollodorus argues in his Chronicles that Plato was born in the
first year of the eighty-eighth Olympiad (427 BC), on the seventh day of the month
Thargelion; according to this tradition the god Apollo was born this day.[52] According
to another biographer of him, Neanthes, Plato was eighty-four years of age at his
death.[52] If we accept Neanthes' version, Plato was younger than Isocrates by six
years, and therefore he was born in the second year of the 87th Olympiad, the year
Pericles died (429 BC).[53] According to the Suda, Plato was born in Aegina in the
88th Olympiad amid the preliminaries of the Peloponnesian war, and he lived 82
years.[54] Sir Thomas Browne also believes that Plato was born in the 88th Olympiad.
[55]
Renaissance Platonists celebrated Plato's birth on November 7.[56] Wilamowitz-
Moellendorff estimates that Plato was born when Diotimos was archon eponymous,
namely between July 29 428 BC and July 24 427 BC.[57] Greek philologist Ioannis
Kalitsounakis believes that the philosopher was born on May 26 or 27 427 BC, while
Jonathan Barnes regards 428 BC as year of Plato's birth.[58] For her part, Debra Nails
asserts that the philosopher was born in 424/423 BC.[56]

b. ^ Diogenes Laertius mentions that Plato "was born, according to some writers, in
Aegina in the house of Phidiades the son of Thales". Diogenes mentions as one of his
sources the Universal History of Favorinus. According to Favorinus, Ariston, Plato's
family, and his family were sent by Athens to settle as cleruchs (colonists retaining
their Athenian citizenship), on the island of Aegina, from which they were expelled
by the Spartans after Plato's birth there.[59] Nails points out, however, that there is no
record of any Spartan expulsion of Athenians from Aegina between 431-411 BC.[60]
On the other hand, at the Peace of Nicias, Aegina was silently left under Athens'
control, and it was not until the summer of 411 that the Spartans overran the island.[61]
Therefore, Nails concludes that "perhaps Ariston was a cleruch, perhaps he went to
Aegina in 431, and perhaps Plato was born on Aegina, but none of this enables a
precise dating of Ariston's death (or Plato's birth).[60] Aegina is regarded as Plato's
place of birth by Suda as well.[54]

c. ^ Plato was a common name, of which 31 instances are known at Athens alone.[62]

Footnotes

34
1. ^ St-Andrews.ac.uk, St. Andrews University
2. ^ Diogenes Laertius 3.4; p. 21, David Sedley, Plato's Cratylus, Cambridge
University Press 2003
3. ^ "Plato". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2002.
4. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, III
* D. Nails, "Ariston", 53
* U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Plato, 46
5. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, I
6. ^ a b W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy', IV, 10
* A.E. Taylor, Plato, xiv
* U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Plato, 47
7. ^ Plato, Republic, 2.368a
* U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Plato, 47
8. ^ Xenophon, Memorabilia, 3.6.1
9. ^ Apuleius, De Dogmate Platonis, 1
* Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, I
"Plato". Suda.
10. ^ Cicero, De Divinatione, I, 36
11. ^ D. Nails, "Ariston", 53
* A.E. Taylor, Plato, xiv
12. ^ Plato, Charmides, 158a
* D. Nails, "Perictione", 53
13. ^ Plato, Charmides, 158a
* Plutarch, Pericles, IV
14. ^ Plato, Gorgias, 481d and 513b
* Aristophanes, Wasps, 97
15. ^ Plato, Parmenides, 126c
16. ^ W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, IV, 11
17. ^ C.H. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, 186
18. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, IV
19. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, IV
* A. Notopoulos, The Name of Plato, 135
20. ^ Apuleius, De Dogmate Platonis, 2
21. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, IV
* W. Smith, Plato, 393
22. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, V
23. ^ Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1.987a
24. ^ McEvoy, James (1984). "Plato and The Wisdom of Egypt". Irish
Philosophical Journal (Belfast: Dept. of Scholastic Philosophy, Queen's
University of Belfast) 1 (2). ISSN 0266-9080.
http://poiesis.nlx.com/display.cfm?
clientId=0&advquery=toc.sect.ipj.1.2&infobase=postoc.nfo&softpage=GetCli
ent42&view=browse. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
25. ^ Huntington Cairns, Introduction to Plato: The Collected Dialogues, p. xiii.
26. ^ Robinson, Arch. Graec. I i 16.
27. ^ "Biography of Aristotle". ClassicNote. GradeSaver LLC.
http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/authors/about_aristotle.html.
Retrieved 2007-12-03.
28. ^ Leo Strauss, The City and Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1964), 50–1.

35
29. ^ Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-158591-6.
30. ^ Gaarder, Jostein (1996). Sophie's World. New York City: Berkley. pp. 91.
31. ^ The Republic; p282
32. ^ Rodriguez- Grandjean, Pablo. Philosophy and Dialogue: Plato's Unwritten
Doctrines from a Hermeneutical Point of View, Twentieth World Congress of
Philosophy, in Boston, Massachusetts from August 10–15, 1998.
33. ^ Reale, Giovanni, and Catan, John R., A History of Ancient Philosophy,
SUNY Press, 1990. ISBN 0-7914-0516-8. Cf. p.14 and onwards.
34. ^ Krämer, Hans Joachim, and Catan, John R., Plato and the Foundations of
Metaphysics: A Work on the Theory of the Principles and Unwritten
Doctrines of Plato with a Collection of the Fundamental Documents,
(Translated by John R. Catan), SUNY Press, 1990. ISBN 0-7914-0433-1, Cf.
pp.38-47
35. ^ Plotinus describes this in the last part of his final Ennead (VI, 9) entitled On
the Good, or the One (Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ ἢ τοῦ ἑνός). Jens Halfwassen states in
Der Aufstieg zum Einen (2006) that "Plotinus' ontology—which should be
called Plotinus' henology - is a rather accurate philosophical renewal and
continuation of Plato's unwritten doctrine, i.e. the doctrine rediscovered by
Krämer and Gaiser."
36. ^ In one of his letters (Epistolae 1612) Ficino writes: "The main goal of the
divine Plato ... is to show one principle of things, which he called the One (τὸ
ἕν)", cf. Marsilio Ficino, Briefe des Mediceerkreises, Berlin, 1926, p. 147.
37. ^ H. Gomperz, Plato's System of Philosophy, in: G. Ryle (ed.), Proceedings of
the Seventh International Congress of Philosophy, London 1931, pp. 426-431.
Reprinted in: H. Gomperz, Philosophical Studies, Boston, 1953, pp. 119-24.
38. ^ K. Gaiser, Testimonia Platonica. Le antiche testimonianze sulle dottrine non
scritte di Platone, Milan, 1998. First published as Testimonia Platonica.
Quellentexte zur Schule und mündlichen Lehre Platons as an appendix to
Gaiser's Platons Ungeschriebene Lehre, Stuttgart, 1963.
39. ^ For a bried description of the problem see for example K. Gaiser, Plato's
enigmatic lecture "On the Good", Phronesis 25 (1980), pp. 5-37. A detailed
analysis is given by Krämer in his Plato and the Foundations of Metaphysics:
A Work on the Theory of the Principles and Unwritten Doctrines of Plato
With a Collection of the Fundamental Documents, Albany: SUNY Press,
1990. Another good description is by Giovanni Reale: Toward a New
Interpretation of Plato, Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1997. Reale
summarizes the results of his research in A History of Ancient Philosophy:
Plato and Aristotle, Albany: SUNY Press, 1990. However the most complete
analysis of the consequences of such an approach is given by Thomas A.
Szlezak in his fundamental Reading Plato, New York: Routledge, 1999.
Another supporter of this interpretation is the german philosopher Karl Albert,
cf. Griechische Religion und platonische Philosophie, Hamburg, 1980 or
Einführung in die philosophische Mystik, Darmstadt, 1996. Hans-Georg
Gadamer is also sympathetic towards it, cf. J. Grondin, Gadamer and the
Tübingen School and Gadamer's 1968 article Plato's Unwritten Dialectic
reprinted in his Dialogue and Dialectic. Gadamer's final position on the
subject is stated in his introduction to La nuova interpretazione di Platone. Un
dialogo tra Hans-Georg Gadamer e la scuola di Tubinga, Milano 1998.

36
40. ^ The extent to which scholars consider a dialogue to be authentic is noted in
John M. Cooper, ed., Complete Works, by Plato (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997),
v–vi.
41. ^ p. 9, John Burnet, Platonism, University of California Press 1928.
42. ^ 1264b24-27
43. ^ a b p. xiv, J. Cooper (ed.), Plato: Complete Works, Hackett 1997.
44. ^ Richard Kraut, "Plato", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 24
June 2008; Malcolm Schofield (1998, 2002), "Plato", in E. Craig (Ed.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge.com, accessed 24 June
2008; Christopher Rowe, "Interpreting Plato", in H. Benson (ed.), A
Companion to Plato, Blackwell 2006.
45. ^ T. Brickhouse & N. Smith, "Plato", The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, accessed 24 June 2008.
46. ^ See W. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 4, Cambridge
University Press 1975; G. Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher,
Cambridge University Press 1991; T. Penner, "Socrates and the Early
Dialogues", in R. Kraut (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge
University Press 1992; C. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, Cambridge
University Press 1996; G. Fine, Plato 2: Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the
Soul, Oxford University Press 1999.
47. ^ Constance Chu Meinwald, Plato's Parmenides (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991).
48. ^ "The time is not long after the death of Socrates; for the Pythagoreans
[Echecrates & co.] have not heard any details yet" (J. Burnet, Plato's Phaedo,
Oxford 1911, p. 1.
49. ^ sect. 177, J. Burnet, Greek Philosophy, MacMillan 1950.
50. ^ Boyer, Carl B. (1991). "The age of Plato and Aristotle". A History of
Mathematics (Second ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. pp. 86.
ISBN 0471543977. "Plato is important in the history of mathematics largely
for his role as inspirer and director of others, and perhaps to him is due the
sharp distinction in ancient Greece between arithmetic (in the sense of the
theory of numbers) and logistic (the technique of computation). Plato regarded
logistic as appropriate for the businessman and for the man of war, who "must
learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." The
philosopher, on the other hand, must be an arithmetician "because he has to
arise out of the sea of change and lay hold of true being.""
51. ^ Manuscripts - Philosophy Faculty Library
52. ^ a b Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, II
53. ^ F.W. Nietzsche, Werke, 32
54. ^ a b "Plato". Suda.
55. ^ T. Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, XII
56. ^ a b D. Nails, The Life of Plato of Athens, 1
57. ^ U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Plato, 46
58. ^ "Plato". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2002. | birth_place = *"Plato".
Encyclopaedic Dictionary The Helios Volume V (in Greek). 1952.
59. ^ Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato, III
60. ^ a b D. Nails, "Ariston", 54
61. ^ Thucydides, 5.18 | birth_place = * Thucydides, 8.92
62. ^ W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, IV, 10
* L. Tarán, Plato's Alleged Epitaph, 61

37
References
Primary sources (Greek and Roman)

• Apuleius, De Dogmate Platonis, I. See original text in Latin Library.

• Aristophanes, The Wasps. See original text in Perseus program.
• Aristotle, Metaphysics. See original text in Perseus program.
• Cicero, De Divinatione, I. See original text in Latin library.
• Diogenes Laërtius, Life of Plato, translated by Robert Drew Hicks (1925).
• Plato: Charmides on Wikisource. See original text in Perseus program.
• Plato: Gorgias on Wikisource. See original text in Perseus program.
• Plato, Parmenides. See original text in Perseus program.
• Plato: The Republic on Wikisource. See original text in Perseus program.
• Plutarch, Pericles. See original text in Perseus program.
• Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War on Wikisource, V, VIII. See
original text in Perseus program.
• Xenophon, Memorabilia. See original text in Perseus program.

Secondary sources

• Browne, Sir Thomas (1646-1672). Pseudodoxia Epidemica.

• Guthrie, W.K.C. (1986). A History of Greek Philosophy: Volume 4, Plato:
The Man and His Dialogues: Earlier Period. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 0-521-31101-2.
• Kahn, Charles H. (2004). "The Framework". Plato and the socratic dialogue:
The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 0-521-64830-0.
• Nails, Debra (2006). "The Life of Plato of Athens". A Companion to Plato
edited by Hugh H. Benson. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-405-11521-1.
• Nails, Debra (2002). "Ariston/Perictione". The People of Plato: A
Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Hackett Publishing. ISBN 0-
872-20564-9.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm (1967). "Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen". Werke:
Kritische Gesamtausgabe (in German). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3-110-
13912-X.
• Notopoulos, A. (April 1939). "The Name of Plato". Classical Philology (The
University of Chicago Press) 34 (2): 135–145. doi:10.1086/362227.
• "Plato". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2002.
• "Plato". Encyclopaedic Dictionary The Helios Volume XVI (in Greek). 1952.
• "Plato". Suda. 10th century.
• Smith, William (1870). "Plato". Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography
and Mythology. http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2725.html.
• Tarán, Leonardo (2001). Collected Papers 1962-1999. Brill Academic
Publishers. ISBN 9-004-12304-0..
• Taylor, Alfred Edward (2001). Plato: The Man and his Work. Courier Dover
Publications. ISBN 0-486-41605-4.
• Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (2005 (first edition 1917)). Plato: his
Life and Work (translated in Greek by Xenophon Armyros. Kaktos. ISBN 960-
382-664-2.

38
Further reading
• Allen, R.E. (2006). Studies in Plato's Metaphysics II. Parmenides Publishing.
ISBN 978-1-930972-18-6
• Ambuel, David (2006). Image and Paradigm in Plato's Sophist. Parmenides
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-004-9
• Bakalis, Nikolaos (2005). Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the
Stoics Analysis and Fragments, Trafford Publishing ISBN 1-4120-4843-5
• Barrow, Robin (2007). Plato: Continuum Library of Educational Thought.
Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-8408-5.
• Cadame, Claude (1999). Indigenous and Modern Perspectives on Tribal
Initiation Rites: Education According to Plato, pp. 278–312, in Padilla, Mark
William (editor), "Rites of Passage in Ancient Greece: Literature, Religion,
Society", Bucknell University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8387-5418-X
• Cooper, John M. & Hutchinson, D. S. (Eds.) (1997). Plato: Complete Works.
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 0-87220-349-2.
• Corlett, J. Angelo (2005). Interpreting Plato's Dialogues. Parmenides
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-02-5
• Durant, Will (1926). The Story of Philosophy. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-
671-69500-2.
• Derrida, Jacques (1972). La dissémination, Paris: Seuil. (esp. cap.: La
Pharmacie de Platon, 69-199) ISBN 2-02-001958-2
• Field, G.C. (Guy Cromwell) (1969). The Philosophy of Plato (2nd ed. with an
appendix by R. C. Cross. ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0198880405.
• Fine, Gail (2000). Plato 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology Oxford University
Press, USA, ISBN 0-19-875206-7
• Garvey, James (2006,). Twenty Greatest Philosophy Books. Continuum.
ISBN 0826490530.
• Guthrie, W. K. C. (1986). A History of Greek Philosophy (Plato - The Man &
His Dialogues - Earlier Period), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-
31101-2
• Guthrie, W. K. C. (1986). A History of Greek Philosophy (Later Plato & the
Academy) Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-31102-0
• Havelock, Eric (2005). Preface to Plato (History of the Greek Mind), Belknap
Press, ISBN 0-674-69906-8
• Hamilton, Edith & Cairns, Huntington (Eds.) (1961). The Collected Dialogues
of Plato, Including the Letters. Princeton Univ. Press. ISBN 0-691-09718-6.
• Irwin, Terence (1995). Plato's Ethics, Oxford University Press, USA, ISBN 0-
19-508645-7
• Jackson, Roy (2001). Plato: A Beginner's Guide. London: Hoder &
Stroughton. ISBN 0-340-80385-1.
• Kochin, Michael S. (2002). Gender and Rhetoric in Plato’s Political Thought.
Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0-521-80852-9.
• Kraut, Richard (Ed.) (1993). The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-43610-9.
• Krämer, Hans Joachim (1990). Plato and the Foundations of Metaphysics.
SUNY Press. ISBN 0-791-40433-1.
• Lilar, Suzanne (1954), Journal de l'analogiste, Paris, Éditions Julliard;
Reedited 1979, Paris, Grasset. Foreword by Julien Gracq

39
• Lilar, Suzanne (1963), Le couple, Paris, Grasset. Translated as Aspects of Love
in Western Society in 1965, with a foreword by Jonathan Griffin London,
Thames and Hudson.
• Lilar, Suzanne (1967) A propos de Sartre et de l'amour , Paris, Grasset.
• Lundberg, Phillip (2005). Tallyho - The Hunt for Virtue: Beauty,Truth and
Goodness Nine Dialogues by Plato: Pheadrus, Lysis, Protagoras, Charmides,
Parmenides, Gorgias, Theaetetus, Meno & Sophist. Authorhouse. ISBN 1-
4184-4977-6.
• Melchert, Norman (2002). The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction
to Philosophy. McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-19-517510-7.
• Meinwald, Constance Chu (1991). Plato's Parmenides. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-506445-3.
• Miller, Mitchell (2004). The Philosopher in Plato's Statesman. Parmenides
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-16-2
• Mohr, Richard D. (2006). God and Forms in Plato - and other Essays in
Plato's Metaphysics. Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-01-8
• Moore, Edward (2007). Plato. Philosophy Insights Series. Tirril, Humanities-
Ebooks. ISBN 978-1-84760-047-9
• Nightingale, Andrea Wilson. (1995). "Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the
Construct of Philosophy", Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48264-X
• Reale, Giovanni (1990). A History of Ancient Philosophy: Plato and Aristotle.
SUNY Press. ISBN 0-791-40516-8.
• Reale, Giovanni (1997). Toward a New Interpretation of Plato. CUA Press.
ISBN 0-813-20847-5.
• Sallis, John (1996). Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues.
Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21071-2.
• Sallis, John (1999). Chorology: On Beginning in Plato's "Timaeus". Indiana
University Press. ISBN 0-253-21308-8.
• Sayre, Kenneth M. (2006). Plato's Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved.
Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-09-4
• Seung, T. K. (1996). Plato Rediscovered: Human Value and Social Order.
Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8112-2
• Szlezak, Thomas A. (1999). Reading Plato. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-18984-5.
• Taylor, A. E. (2001). Plato: The Man and His Work, Dover Publications,
ISBN 0-486-41605-4
• Vlastos, Gregory (1981). Platonic Studies, Princeton University Press, ISBN
0-691-10021-7
• Vlastos, Gregory (2006). Plato's Universe - with a new Introducution by Luc
Brisson, Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-13-1
• Zuckert, Catherine (2009). Plato's Philosophers: The Coherence of the
Dialogues, The University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-99335-5
• Oxford University Press publishes scholarly editions of Plato's Greek texts in
the Oxford Classical Texts series, and some translations in the Clarendon
Plato Series.
• Harvard University Press publishes the hardbound series Loeb Classical
Library, containing Plato's works in Greek, with English translations on facing
pages.
• Thomas Taylor has translated Plato's complete works.
• Smith, William. (1867 — original). Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Biography and Mythology. University of Michigan/Online version.

40
 • Aspects of antiquity: Discoveries and Controversies by M.I. Finley, issued
1969 by The Viking Press, Inc.
• Interpreting Plato: The Dialogues as Drama by James A. Arieti, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-8476-7662-5

External links
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Plato

Greek Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Platon

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Plato

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Plato

• Works available on-line:

o Works by Plato at Perseus Project - Greek & English hyperlinked text
o Works of Plato (Jowett, 1892)
o Works by Plato at Project Gutenberg
 Spurious and doubtful works at Project Gutenberg
o Plato complete works, annotated and searchable, at ELPENOR
o Euthyphro LibriVox recording
o Ion LibriVox recording
o The Apology of Socrates (Greek), LibriVox recording
o Quick Links to Plato's Dialogues (English, Greek, French, Spanish)
o THE DIALOGUES OF PLATO-5 vols (mp3) tr. by B. JOWETT at
archive.org

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

o Plato
o Plato's Ethics
o Friendship and Eros
o Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology
o Plato on Utopia
o Rhetoric and Poetry

• Other Articles:
o Excerpt from W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. IV,
Plato: the man and his dialogues, earlier period, Cambridge
University Press, 1989, pp. 8-38
o Website on Plato and his works: Plato and his dialogues by Bernard
Suzanne
o Reflections on Reality and its Reflection: comparison of Plato and
Bergson; do forms exist?
o "Plato and Totalitarianism: A Documentary Study"
o "Plato and Platonism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert
Appleton Company. 1913.

41
 • Online library "Vox Philosophiae"

• Comprehensive Research Materials:

o Approaching Plato: A Guide to the Early and Middle Dialogues
o Works by or about Plato in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

• Other sources:
• Interview with Mario Vegetti on Plato's political thought. The interview,
available in full on video, both in Italian and English, is included in the series
Multi-Media Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Plato vs. Aristotle

Written by: devil dog

Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political
philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers
in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western
philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed with improving the
society in which they were part of during their existence. It is necessary therefore to
analyze their different theoretical approaches regarding their philosophical
perspectives, such as ethics and psychology. This paper however will mainly
concentrate on Aristotle’s views on friendship and how it impacts today’s society.

The main objective in Plato’s philosophy is a creation of a perfect society. He

constructs a foundation for a utopian society in his book “The Republic”. The purpose
of his thought process was to cleanse his society of the woes he felt plagued it and
construct a new one.

Plato lived during the Peloponnesian War, which consequently lead to the end of the
Athenian democracy. He had eyewitness account of his mentor’s (Socrates) trial and
execution. Bitter and angered by the political corruption that gripped the Athenian
democratic government, he disengaged from participating in politics. He strongly felt
that neither a moral individual nor a state that is rational could be established in a
democratic environment. Plato felt that the common man wasn’t intelligent or capable
of dealing with concepts that influence the state such as economics, policy of foreign
affairs and other relative matters. He viewed political incumbents in Athens
government as being elected for matters that were irrelevant to main factors that
affected the state. Another danger was that excessive liberty for the people of the
democratic society could potentially lead to anarchy. In Plato’s perfect society, he
forged ahead to eliminate the disease (pluralism of friendship) that plagued the human
character and society (Class Notes). Essentially, Plato wanted to establish the perfect
form of society, linked by one single entity.

42
Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect
society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his
existence. Rather than develop a framework for a society that is perfect, he suggested
that society should, in it self, strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that
utopia was abstract and superficial. It wouldn’t allow for realistic problem solving
solutions. He felt that Plato’s view of a strict overhaul of society in general wasn’t
necessary. He believed that society was at its optimum and you can only improve
upon the existing one.

Plato’s perfect society would consist of three basic groups, which are Guardians
(Gold), Auxiliaries (Silver), and the Artisan (Bronze). The highest of these classes are
the gold people, which consist of rulers and non-rulers. Those that are rulers are
society’s decision & policy makers and non-rulers occupy levels of civil servants. The
fundamental prerequisite to becoming a genuine philosopher is to have knowledge of
forms, thus enabling you to know the truth. Plato’s theory of the forms is partly
logical and part metaphysical. Armed with the truth, he believed that philosophical
ruler will always make the right decision, and rule with total wisdom, justice and
virtue. The rulers, he felt, wouldn’t posses any money or property, they would be free
of desires, excesses, and vices. The Auxiliaries (Silver) are people of strength,
courage, and military capacity; they occupy a small sector of society. All auxiliaries
would be subjected to a series of tests, which will check their powers of resistance to
self-interest, pleasure and other temptations. The last level, Artisan (Bronze), are the
workers which might be composed of farmers and artist, essentially non-skilled
workers. They would produce all the consumable and non-consumable goods deemed
necessary for consumption and the continued economic viability of the society. Plato
whole-heartedly felt that if ever the bronze or iron people rule the state would collapse
(Class Notes). He sought to establish the concept of the gold class having wisdom,
thus they should be wise and good rulers. It was imperative that those who rule be
philosophers and skilled in areas that pertained to the interest of the state.

Aristotle’s disagreed with Plato in regards to allowing one particular class to govern
the state politically for indefinite period of time. He felt that to not allow interaction
among the various classes would inhibit those who posses the ability to engage in
political life, an injustice. He feels Plato’s structure of classes is politically incorrect
for the state. He quotes “It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even
of happiness, maintaining that happiness of the whole state which should be the object
of legislation”, ultimately he is stating that those who rule (Guardians), sacrifice their
happiness for control and absolute power. Those who are of the gold class, lead such a
rigid life, that it will become necessary to impose the same strict way of life on those
being governed. He places the idea of moderation on a high pedestal. Many
individuals come to favor the concept of moderation because it is flexible, part liberal
and part conservative. Plato’s ideal society is so difficult to conceive that Aristotle
believes that no human being can achieve its rudimentary requirements. He decided to
express in the “Republic” how men should conduct it self in a perfect society and
what attitude they should posses. In retrospect, Aristotle felt by using real world
experience along with real people, he can see first hand how and what way can he
improve society.

Plato and Aristotle both agreed on justice and viewed it objectively; that is it controls
the belief a life of good nature would be provided for all people no matter their

43
ranking in society. Aristotle’s states “ In democracies, for example, justice is
considered to mean equality, no oligarchies, again inequality in the distribution of
office to considered just”. Plato views the idea of law and justice as what sets the
standard for society’s behavior in a state.

Aristotle puts emphasis on the institution of the polis or civilized community. The
polis was structured to allow the average individual in society to participate in
political matters. This institutional forum is not the city-state or the community, but
merely the larger of the two entities. It is rather a partnership between households,
clans, and villages for the sake of a fully developed and self-sufficient life. The polis
enables those individuals who naturally posses moral intellect and wisdom an
opportunity to rise to higher positions (Class Notes). Justice is the political good
within the polis, and it must promote the common interest of the people of the state.
What is seen as good must be distributed and regulated through out the state. The law
is also the regulating factor that arises from equal and free people in civil institution.
The well being of a society is solely based upon the connection between the effort in
which the citizens of the state adhere to the law of the land. A good citizen of the state
will posses prudence, moderation, and justice, and above all to rule and be ruled.

His belief contradicts Plato theory of one controlling class, governing the political
matters and decisions that effect the state. The Theory of Democracy that Aristotle
states is that democracy is a “perversion” form of government of “polity” (Class
Notes). He clearly states “The people at large should be sovereign rather than the few
best”. Plato on the other hand, wouldn’t permit citizens to engage in public
participation concerning governmental issues, as Aristotle would have enjoyed. Plato
also felt that public judgments of disapproval and approval were based on emotional
belief, instead of factual knowledge. He believes that if a revolution occurred it would
happened within the corridors of the palace, hence palace revolution. This type of
revolution happens when there is a transmission of power from one holder of power to
another. Aristotle perceives such an event occurring between the wealthy and less
fortunate in society. He feels to prevent such actions, one must participate in them.
Plato thinks that in a utopia a disgruntled group of Guardians will emerge and
disengage themselves from the ruling law of the state. He feels that an oligarchy two
things may initiate a possible revolution: the first one is the ruler and their offspring
would grow to be weak, sympathetic, and second is that the number of poor
individuals will grow larger and there for be taken advantage of by the ruling class.
Aristotle states that to know the factors that caused the revolution, which destroys the
constitution, is to also know the principal of effect, which in turn ensure its
preservation.

Aristotle and Plato also have contrasting views on ethics, psychology and
metaphysics. In regards to ethics, Aristotle believes that virtue is necessary for
happiness, while Plato says virtue is enough for happiness. The psychological
difference between the two is that Plato feels the body is a prison for the soul; body
and soul are two different entities, capable of maintaining independence from one
another. As for Aristotle, he claims that the body and soul are two different things,
one consisting of matter the other form. He sees everything in the universe being
composed of matter and form, so its not surprising that he perceives human being are
too. To him form is simply the way matter is arranged. For example, a cat is
composed in a feline way; that’s what makes a cat. Human being for that matter, have

44
a unique method of structure, too; that’s their form. In fact, Aristotle strongly feels
that nothing in existence can be without form and matter. If you eliminate its structure
and form you have nothing left. So for Aristotle, the concept of soul without body or
body without soul is incoherent. In regards to form, Plato expressed how things
should be through utilizing vague language and poetry.

In respect to friendship, I firmly believe that Aristotle’s views on friendship holds

value in today’s society. First we will touch on the various points that Aristotle makes
regarding friendship, then expand on his main principle in connection to modern time,
if possible. Aristotle distinguishes between three types of friendship: friendships of
utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of virtue.

The idea behind friendship of utility is that it is founded on the idea of usefulness. The
interaction among friends is only valued if there is usefulness between the two
individuals. An example of this would be any automobile dealer and car buyer.
Factoring in that they know each other, both need what the other can provide. The
bond that unites the two people is based on usefulness. As long as they each can
provide what the other needs, it satisfies the friendship.

The second concept would be friendship of pleasure, which is basically the amount of
pleasure generated between the participants. An example of this would be two people
engaging in a social event, such as an outdoor festival. Each of the participant’s
enjoys the others company. They are friends because of the pleasure they bring to
themselves.

The last kind of friendship is the friendship of virtue. This friendship is special and
unique, such that it can only be between two people. Rather than utility and pleasure,
where it can establish a group of people, this type of friendship is connected solely
between two people. This type of friendship is also unique based on the fact that it can
only hold any true value if both individuals are of the same virtue.

People in general might regard these definitions of friend objective. Some believe that
doing something for someone is solely based on the act of self –fulfillment. Aristotle,
I believe is not incorrect in stating that the idea in friendship in utility and pleasure is
for our own sake, and the concept behind friendship of virtue is for the sake of the
friend. These three categories are arranged in a certain format that there are influenced
by the next level. These bonds of friendship can arise from various forms of potential
fraternal groupings.

Present day possibilities can include: various college organizations, union members,
national communities and any other form of group’s that people find a common
denominator. For Aristotle

Aristotle is more philosophically inclined than Plato; he tends to get rid of ideas that
are irrelevant, and he believes that the concept of forms existing separate from matter
is somewhat superfluous. He dives right into the heart of the matter. You can see
Aristotle as someone who believes the world in which he occupies very satisfying just
the way it is. His main focus is always connected with things that are consistent with
ideal experience, without introducing unnecessary notions of concepts that can’t be

45
proven. Plato’s vague, poetic language in metaphysics and physics didn’t stimulate
inspiration; it made him uncomfortable.

Both Plato and Aristotle were two men who envisioned methods on ways to improve
their existing society. Plato, the political philosopher, was basically in pursuit of
philosophical truth. Aristotle was more concerned with citizenship and institutional
politics. They both had developed ideas and concepts to improve society as a whole.
Aristotle and Plato have had a tremendous impact on political scientists of today. In
Aristotle case, he was responsible for developing various democratic ideas. Even in
modern democracies like our own Aristotle’s ideas hold true. When we vote in the
election of the ruler of our country we, theoretically, are voting for the single most
“excellent” citizen of our nation. That is we are voting for that citizen who can do the
best job of working toward our common interest. The citizen of a state who has the
greatest ability to work towards the salvation of the constitution has a great gift that
can benefit all citizens. It only makes sense to allow that particular individual to lead
the rest of the citizens in working towards the common interests of the state.

In conclusion, these men were great thinkers. Their opinions on society and its
function were quite different, but they both had the same concern, to build a better
way of life for their societies they in lived in and for the societies that would come to
be in the future.

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4803.php

46