The third chapter of Plato: A Very Short Introduction, titled “Drama, fiction, and the elusive author”, starts out by telling us the theory and practice of what philosophy is and what it's not. The author Julia Annis tells us that Plato insists that philosophy is the search for truth using methods of argumentation whereas rhetoric is a discipline focused on persuasion and not aimed at finding the truth. He had a strong opposition between the two as told in Gorgias and Phaedrus. Plato separates philosophy from other so-called intellectual forms such as poetry and drama by saying it has its own goals and procedures and is distinct from other ways of thinking. Ironically, Plato was known to be one of the most literary philosophers with his dialogues containing drama, comedy, and metaphors. In Hippias Major, for example, Socrates is talking to a sophist about taking money for lessons on rhetoric. In the dialogue, Hippias thinks Socrates agrees with him, but in actuality, the reader can see that Socrates is ridiculing him and not in agreement with his antics. Annis thus asks, “How can so literary a writer be against what literature does? Is he not undermining what he himself is doing?”
Could it be that Plato doesn’t realize he’s undermining himself or perhaps he’s purposely doing this to shake the reader’s expectations? Annis comes up with a more moderate explanation. Plato detaches himself by creating the debate between the characters and leaves it up to the reader to decide, something the author calls dialogue-character philosophy. This raises several issues for the reader. First of all, it encourages the reader to get involved with philosophy and not just enjoy the drama. Secondly, not all the characters are presented. Most of the focus is on Socrates and the person he’s talking to. Lastly, Socrates is the idealized main character with the dialogues message focused on different areas of life. Another question Annis raises is why does Plato distance himself from Socrates. She answers this by saying Plato, an influential philosopher and follower of Socrates, does not want to influence the reader by stating his views and wishes the reader to think and understand for himself. Plato doesn’t do the work for the reader. The reader if he wants to understand the message must do the work himself.
There are two traditions to reading Plato. One is the Socratic argument and the other the Platonist system of ideas, a system to help readers with concepts of language, details, and arguments of the three main areas of philosophy: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. The latter was taught at Plato’s academy and later developed into Neo-Platonism a rethinking of Platonic thought by the brilliant philosopher Plotinus. This second tradition is the actual ideas about the cosmos, soul, and happiness. These two traditions at times have been hostile, but I agree with the author that these two conditions can coexist and we can learn from both of them.
Does Plato have many doctrines or are they just many voices? The ancient philosopher Arius Didymus, believes he has many voices, while others believe these many voices add up to Plato’s point of view. There are many reactions to this such as the dialogues are to be read separately and not to be built as a complete system of ideas. Opposing opinions say some dialogues such as Apology, Crito, and Gorgias show a continuity of goodness and happiness in them. The Platonists see Platonism as a vast set of ideas that are independent as shown in the presentation of them in the dialogues. Opponents of this view feel the Platonist have given Plato a bad name, as he is seen as more interested in dogma rather than argumentation.
The last section of this chapter addresses philosophy, fiction, and myth. Since philosophers aim at truth, then there should be no place for being entertained by stories that are not true. Plato is very hostile to this form of fiction, those of drama and recitation, mainly because they form opinions and shape the ideas of the world and the people that live in it. He stresses this in the Republic where the stories by Homer leaves people with false beliefs and ideas of the gods and the standards in which to live. He thinks creativity and imagination are especially harmful. A story is only valuable if it encourages us to think of good values. Plato uses myths and stories in his writings, but only to show the rejection of hostile gods and replacing them with a god responsible for good.
Questions:
The chapter briefly mentions the Middle Platonist. Who were they and how did their beliefs differ from the Platonists?
What lesson should we take away from Plato’s story of Atlantis? What good is derived from this story?
Plato was certainly a literary author, in the sense that his writing depicts characters representing diverse views in dialogue. But his metaphysical commitment to accuracy in representation even at the expense of artistic misrepresentation suggests otherwise. I lean to the view that his many voices are intended to draw readers to Plato's own view, and not leave it up to us to decide what's true.
ReplyDeleteThe Atlantis fable is, though, a potential outlier with respect to this interpretation. Maybe its purpose is to evoke the sense that a more ideally-realized world, a more Platonically "perfect" world, is indeed conceivable. Or maybe its just a sidelight, a literary diversion offered for our amusement. That would favor a more charitable reading of Plato as a genuinely literary writer.
Middle Platonism. The period designated by historians of philosophy as the "Middle Platonic" begins with Antiochus of Ascalon (ca. 130-68 B.C.E.) and ends with Plotinus (204-70 C.E.), who is considered the founder of Neoplatonism... IEP, continues: https://www.iep.utm.edu/midplato/
Are people fundamentally selfish, in your experience? Are you? Can selfish people change?
ReplyDelete-All people are selfish to a degree. The majority of people are very selfish. Humans are built to protect what is theirs and THEN worry about others. Would you save your son or a stranger's son first in an apartment fire? But many have grown to be less selfish. Have been taught to behave selflessly. But it takes work, it takes effort to be fair and kind. However I believe that to be human is to grow and change, and therefor all people can change to be even the slightest more selfless.