Plato: Forms
In his various dialogues, Plato detailed the historical events in the revolutionary era of Socrates. The texts provide fundamental arguments laid out to describe the conception of knowledge and wisdom. Dialogues involving Socrates had unnerving ideologies regarding the nature of knowledge and wisdom that was too austere to the majority of the Athenian audience that they led to his sentencing to death. He suggested that knowledge was an abstract entity only capable of being attained in its truest and unchangeable form. This fete is achievable by the separation of the soul from the body to learn the fundamentals forces that govern nature from an invisible backdrop that is inconceivable. In essence, a lover of wisdom (a philosopher) could bear knowledge through the persistent seeking of knowledge beyond the realm of what one can perceive through their senses. Such knowledge is eternal and, according to Plato, leads a lover of wisdom’s soul to an afterlife that then unbound them from the ignorance that another life in the flesh would subject them to after death. However, the paradigm of such forms is not perceivable in the dimensions (or parameters) of life that human cognition comprehends. In essence, such types are unknown to humans while they exist in the realms that we know.
The knowledge that delineates different concepts from each other begins from recollection of features that distinguish them from each other. In Euthyphro, the etiology of doctrines that inform the school of thinking brought forth a dilemma that challenged the knowledge and wisdom of an entitled clergy (Euthyphro 10a). Euthyphro fails to define what is holy or unholy and instead provides identification of the persons or acts that demarcate them. As such, this early work of Plato did much to reveal the pure form of the concept. Most of what is common in the world cannot be quantified or described for what it indeed is. The reason for this is the absent challenge in the definition of the scope and nature of concepts. Forms remain strange to humans as they are more obsessed with identities and titles than they are with defining roles, qualities and features.
The cycle of acquisition of knowledge and wisdom is self-limiting because of society’s fixation on its established notions of expertise. Awareness of the unknown arises contempt in the community owing to its disruption of assumptions that bring comfort to the philosophy of the majority. In The Republic, the cyclical nature of cognitive dissonance in a group of prisoners set apart from the entirety of their environment leaves them in doubt of alternative interpretations of knowledge that an unshackled prisoner came to comprehend fully (The Republic 375). The journey to understanding forms is one of the challenges as those that the unshackled prisoner in The Republic that is strange and illogical relative to common knowledge. Indeed, the verdict on Socrates’ case in Phaedo fit the estimations of the fate of an enlightened prisoner in The Republic, “and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death” (The Republic 375; Apology 23a). Therefore, it would be impossible to know the forms owing to the resistance of society to new ideations that topple the existing paradigms of knowledge and understanding.
People always try to find what is good for them in beautiful things in which they invest love, trust attention and care. The Form of the Beautiful describes the hustle for love in Symposium in such that it leads people to seek out things that are inspired. The general presumption is that such forms are elusive to human perception, and beholding the true form of beauty would be the epitome of seeking and gathering beautiful things out of love for them (Symposium 210c). On the realization of such a fete, Diotima claims that one finds true virtue, and holds on to it with all his might (Symposium 210a). The objective of the toil for love and the form of Beauty is to withhold goodness. Diotima claimed such is the Beauty that would inspire true virtue and not its images, indicating that virtue could be learned unlike Meno’s assertions in his argument with Socrates (Symposium 212a; Meno 73). The various speakers voiced their opinions of the machinations of love with clear distinctions that it was a struggle to reach a point of real virtue in the face of love owing to the fleeting or non-existent form of Beauty to inspire goodness. Plato still insists on the inability of humans to comprehend forms in any way. For instance, to know a form such as Size, our knowledge has to acknowledge its existence. Still, humans are at a disadvantage because we are but particulars and not forms; therefore, we cannot relate to that which we do not possess. By this analogy, it is conclusive that humans cannot know forms beyond their perception. This theory suggests that high order concepts cannot reconcile aside ordinary ideas that humans can relate to each other.
In Socrates’ assumption that forms are accessible to humans in their entirety only after death, he supposes the possibility of this in the existent of a conscious soul after death. In doing this, he justifies the loyalty of the life of a lover of wisdom (otherwise, a philosopher) in his reservation to the callings of the flesh with the presence of a soul that life can grow from after death. In his classical interrogative technique of systematic analysis, he supposes just as sleep comes from being awake, and being awake comes from sleep, life arises from death as death results from life (Phaedo 70d). This postulation suggests that souls remain active in the afterlife awaiting reincarnation in the underworld. However, the utility of such a window for access to the actual forms would be redundant to human philosophy owing to its existence beyond our realms. This conjecture is only as pure as the unknown and the unproven can be. Its weight in the analysis of the thesis can be reconciled by the instance when Socrates realized the truth in the declaration of the oracle at Delphi of his wisdom beyond all else owing to his acknowledgment of the vast hiatus in his understanding (Apology 21a). Consequently, in our absence of knowledge on what happens after death, it would be wise to ready our souls to learn posthumously as the paradigm life presents little in the form of real knowledge.
Closing off the physical aspect of one’s being allows the soul to access the forms. According to Socrates, the dedication of one’s soul to the exploration of the forms affords them the calm to brave whichever experiences their body endures. The body’s permanent link to the soul makes it a constant source of illusions that inhibit the acquisition of knowledge from the introspective realm; instead, it feeds it with “impure thought” that obscures the true nature of reality (Phaedoa 65c). In Phaedo, the body’s sole concern is revealed as the achievement of pleasures such as satiety (food and drink), wealth, riches and sex (Phaedo 66a-d). Even as Socrates edged closer to death in Phaedo, he was calmed by the notion of eliminating the noise of his bodily senses to leave room for illumination with knowledge in its purest and unadulterated form. The insistence on not letting his soul be entwined in the throes of pain, sorrow or pleasure that his body subjects him to its testament to his pursuit for knowledge in the afterlife (Phaedo 66e – 67a). It is only in the unknown that knowledge can be gained. Death comes with it the separation of the burden of a body from its soul to allow the appreciation of the forms that impart true knowledge.
In conclusion, Plato addressed various issues that attack the fundamentals of understanding that echo through to today. He noted the fleeting capability of people to define the knowledge that they came to bear. Euthyphro fails to understand the nature of his role and can only recite the tenets that govern the clergy without much intuition. Worryingly, The Republic informs of the vicious cycle of rejection of knowledge, and the burden of those who possess it. For instance, Socrates’ life is uncertain owing to his independence of thought and disruption of the framework of thought of the era. Regarding the form of Beauty, Symposium explained how men are in the persistent toil to collect and treasure beautiful things in search of love and goodness. However, the ultimate goal of such struggles is to develop true virtue in the face of the form of Beauty (Symposium 212d). Given the lack of knowledge of true beauty and the scarcity of true virtue, these forms continue to elude the grasp of humans. Socrates purports that these forms are only tenable when one’s soul is absent of the body and its disturbances. The senses of the body deter the introspection that is necessary to find the knowledge that one needs to access the forms of true knowledge. In Phaedo, Socrates argues the presences of a soul that persists after death. The only way one can use their soul to the benefit of obtaining the true knowledge of the forms is by separating one’s soul from the demands of the flesh. Then, one can settle in the afterlife exploring the forms without having to reside in a body again.
Works Cited
Cooper, John M., and Douglas S. Hutchinson, eds. Plato: Complete Works. Hackett Publishing, 1997. EDOC.SITE. Web. 28 Feb. 2019.
Plato. The Republic: by Plato. Instituto De Desenvolvimento Do Potencial Humano, 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2019.
Questions
- Why does Socrates claim that he does not possess any knowledge at all? (See Apology, Phaedo)
This claim by Socrates is drawn from his detesting of experts in their fields that bear no wish to extend their scope of knowledge beyond its established limits. The variability of perspectives makes the practical understanding of one person the limitation of their imagination. In Apology, Socrates accrued enemies trying to learn from such persons with knowledge and wisdom only to realize that the scope of their knowledge barely scratches the surface of what they claim to know (Apology 22a). In Phaedo, he argues that the senses our bodies perceive are not capable of acquiring knowledge, and that is it only a construct that can be attained with introspection into one’s soul. He did so by disregarding all that he knew and acknowledging his ignorance in the reality of life in his pursuit of the Forms that are distinct from the materialistic world.
- Does any human being possess knowledge? What does Socrates say? (See Apology, Phaedo)
Socrates says that the soul is plagued with the bodily desires for being nurtured. Moreover, the senses of the body cloud the perception of various aspects and occurrences of nature in their true Form. In Phaedo, he states that that “when we are dead… (we) attain that which we desire and of which we claim to be lovers, namely, wisdom, as our argument shows, not while we are alive” (Cooper and Hutchinson 58).
- What, according to Socrates, are “forms”? What does Socrates say? (See Phaedo and Symposium)
Forms exist in the unitary sense as indivisible aspects of reality that are beyond the scope of perception that are immortal, innate, unchanging, absolute with divine wisdom and knowledge that can be understood by the soul (78c – 80b).
- Why does Socrates maintain the existence of the forms? Why must the forms exist for Socrates? Why is the idea of appearances without a corresponding world of forms unintelligible for Socrates? Why are the forms necessary? What does Socrates say? (See Phaedo)
Socrates insists that forms exist to counter the otherwise contradictory nature of all that is visible, soluble, mortal, changing, relative, opinioned and dwells or emanates from the body. Just as night is to day, so are forms to appearances (79a-c). Socrates aspires to ascend into the form of a soul to obtain the wisdom that he aspires to attain as a philosopher having lived a life in which he did not let his appearances dictate his interpretation of knowledge. As a soul, he hopes to muster the forms. Most things are in pairs, night and dark, sleep and wake, so why not forms and appearance? It only makes sense to assume so. Forms dictate much of what occurs innately in the world, and they are barely understood. Socrates insists that in the various forms lies the wisdom of the world.
- Can any human being possess knowledge? Can the forms be known by human beings? If so, how? Or is human life a barrier to knowledge? If so, why? (See Phaedo)
Humans can only perceive ‘impure’ knowledge that is adulterated by the bodily senses that one possesses. Alienating one’s soul from the ‘noise’ of the body’s senses would enable an introspective connection with one’s soul. However, the soul is only truly capable of obtaining such peace after death leaving human beings unaware of the forms.
- What does Socrates say about human life? Does Socrates think that human life has value? (See Book 7 of the Republic, Apology, Phaedo, and Symposium)
In Symposium, Socrates says that life is not worth living if one had not seen the soul of Beauty that makes them impervious to materialistic charms and gives them true virtue (Symposium 212d). In Phaedo, he thinks human life is a barrier to knowledge of the forms, and is readying himself to ascend to a higher level of being as a soul.
- When Socrates discusses the forms, does he speak from the standpoint of knowing what the forms are? Or does he speak from the standpoint of not knowing what the forms are? (See Euthyphro, Apology, Phaedo, Republic, and Symposium)
He speaks as one who has knowledge that he knows nothing yet, and that the true knowledge lies beyond the grasp of human perception. He does not know what they are, but knows that they exist.
- If Socrates speaks from the standpoint of knowing what the forms are, then why does he claim that he has no knowledge? If Socrates speaks from the standpoint of not knowing what the forms are, then what is the nature of his discussion about knowledge?
The senses accorded to him by his body deem Socrates oblivious of the forms that he wants he acknowledges being imperceptible to the senses of humans. He does not know the forms but he can discuss the nature with which it can be attained.
- Why does Socrates argue in Symposium, in his exchange with Agathon, that it is not possible for one (i) to love what one possesses or (ii) to possess what one loves? What is his argument? Why must desire (love) always be separated from the thing that is desired (loved)?
Love has no desire for what it possesses; instead, it leans towards what it needs. The dynamics of love require sort of a demand-supply dynamic that one requires something that he does not have. This breeds the love for the desired.
- In Plato’s account of Socrates’ dialogue with Diotima (in Symposium), what is the highest object of love? Can this highest object be possessed? If so, in what sense? If not, why not? What does it mean to love what one cannot possess?
In the conception of divine Beauty in the manner that one beholds with all that he has and manifests true virtue. Such is a form of beauty that can only be perceived at the higher order of things as a form. It is only capable in the divine. A deficiency in a trait or possession is what makes one capable of loving it in another. Having it does not make one eager to love it.
- What does philosophy (“love of wisdom”) actually mean in light of Socrates’ analysis of “love” (desire) and “wisdom” (knowledge of the forms) in the assigned readings from Symposium?
Human desire (Eros) is that which the body demands one to pursue. However, the conditioning of the soul to seek the love of the form of Beauty rather than beauty itself is necessary in the pursuit of knowledge. This phenomenon so happens that one would find life worth living, have true virtue and be a friend of the gods who shall grant immortality to the perceiver of such Beauty.