By Saad Tabche
In this part of The Republic , Plato makes a point. He states that only the philosopher has knowledge. He continues to elaborate that Philosophy is important in society. Plato bases this statement on the argument of completeness. An example of this argument was a beautiful woman. can a beautiful woman be completely beautiful ? Is she beautiful according to all standards , or only to some ? Compared to a goddess , wouldn't she appear normal ? So in conclusion this beautiful woman is not completely beautiful. He adds that no object or person can be complete , because it will always be judged in a way that lacks completeness. As time passes by it will definitely lose its quality and its standards will drop. For example , food will rot , a man will age and die. This concept is difficult to grasp, take the beautiful woman for instance, she is beautiful and normal at the same time and her beauty will fade with time. So how can we know that she's beautiful when she isn't completely and permanently beautiful ? So to think that this beautiful woman cannot be knowledge since it is half false and not permanent. But why must we be vague an not know in what ways she's beautiful and in what ways she's not ? This doesn't work since the woman changes and is not permanent. Since she changes and isn't permanent then our understanding of her must change as well. Plato insists that knowledge is unchangeable, and that is consists of eternal non changing truths. Since knowledge is unchanging absolute truths then it cannot apply to the real world where things change, it can only apply to complete stable unchanging things. Considering previous philosophers, there are 3 types of existence: What is complete, What is not at all, What both is and isn’t. Parmenides (5th century Greek philosopher) spoke a lot about What is and What is not . He stated that everything that is “What is” , is a single unchanging thing. “What is not” is a single changing and shifting thing. Parmenides did not agree with Plato though about the middle realm , “what is and isn’t” , he believed the existence of such a realm would defy logic. Plato moves on to the concept of Good. He stated that the form of Good is inexplicable. Plato stresses on the importance of unity in the soul and city, adding that a city without unity is no longer a city. Even though Plato praised unity he praises harmony, order and balance even more. Harmony between the 3 classes of society makes for a healthy city, and harmony in the soul makes for a just soul. Another argument brought forth was the superiority of forms, Plato brings up their supreme order. The Good in everything is simply its harmony, order and its balance. Plato is unable to define the form of Good, but he knows that there is a way to harmonize it. To Plato, art belongs to the category of imagination. Numerous scholars and philosophers understood imagination as a state of mind that produces art. This analysis isn't as implausible as it may seem. For example a person who bases his behavior on a television series character and is heavily influenced by him is someone rather easy to imagine. Some scholars debated whether Plato does truly believe that art belongs to the category of imagination. Some other understandings of imagination do not refer to art at all. According to these other understandings imagination is when our perception isn't completely correct, in other words we do not relate one perception to another. Thought and Understanding are easier to identify since Plato is more clear about them. plato stated that Thought is the reasoning that utilises images and undemonstrated assumptions. For instance in geometry the use of diagrams and triangles in order to prove theorems the need to use certain axioms that are taken as true without any proof. Understanding makes the axioms unnecessary by basing the entire body of knowledge on a single universal proposition.
0 Comments
By Hussein Zayour We have been discussing Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics for the past week in class. We started by saying that ethics to Aristotle is about action. People should be taught ethics and should act according to these ethics too; it is not only sufficient to learn and know about these ethics, but people should also act ethically to reach those ethics. For as we said in class that it is not just important to see a target on a field, to that everyone can see it, but what is more important is to hit the target; we should act in the way that will take us to our goals. This leads us to the discussion about good, and to that it is not only important to find the good, but it is also important to find the way that makes us able to integrate this good in our lives and actions. Then we discussed how Plato claimed the existence of only one form of good, one that all goods are related to, and which is unique to all goods in which all goods will feel the same like it to a certain extent. However, this claim can be counter argued against by the fact that good is relative. Our account of this science will be adequate if it achieves such clarity as the subject- matter allows; for the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions, any more than in all products of handicraft (Book 1, ch.3). This quote takes into account what we said in class about how the study of good can never be precise and can never have a unique code or rule due to the diversity of human kind. What seems good to someone might be bad for another. Aristotle argues that it is dangerous to be too specific in the knowledge of the good, to that can stiffen the flexibility of goodness and thus it will no longer fit all people. This is where we stated the particular wisdom, as it says that one should act in the good way that suites a situation at hand, and thus there can be no book that states precisely a unique act that one can generalize on a bunch of situations; every situation is unique and thus needs a unique act of good that suites it. Then we jumped to the discussion of Aristotle’s good. We started by saying that good is all about activity, for that the good is the perfect form of activity of a certain body. And here lye the difference between Plato’s forms that are found in another world and Aristotle’s that are in this life and are the forms of perfect activity. Thus the good for human beings is the perfect form of human activity, the activity of both the body and the mind. The body for Aristotle is important for the perfect activity along with the mind and soul, unlike Plato that neglects the physical body. Human activities aim at ends which humans consider good, and this led to the distinction of two types of activities and ends. One of which is the activity that is the end of itself, and the other is one which its end comes when the activity itself is done. For example, someone playing the piano keeps on practicing the piano to get better, but when he gets better he keeps on playing to stay at this level he achieved and does not stop to say I am better now so I will stop, thus this act of playing the piano is itself its own end. On the other hand, the activity of building a house gets to its end when the house is complete, and thus activity of building stops. The activity however, that is its own end is the higher end according to Aristotle, and thus this end must be the supreme good. We quickly mentioned at this point that since politics is related in securing people’s highest ends, then it must have something to do with the supreme good; it searches for this good and tries to aim people towards it. A distinction between two types of good was made: goods that are pathways to reach the supreme good and these get there good character from the fact that they aim at the higher good, and a good that is good itself, those are the highest ends. However, we didn’t find one rule to follow on relating these goods to the two types of activities mentioned earlier; we just accepted that the higher goods are related to the activities that are their own ends. In addition we said that if there are good things, and which there are since we can recognize good actions in the society, then there must be an ultimate supreme good. These goods must be existing or else we would be striving for nothing. Aristotle agrees that this ultimate end, the supreme good, is happiness. All other goods like being honored or intelligent or virtuous are all means to reach happiness. Then Aristotle said that when something is good then it is good at what it does: its activity (as argued earlier). For example, a warrior that is of a steady grip and a sharp sight is a good warrior, since he does his activity in a good way. However, what distinguishes us human beings from other bodies is our rationality, so being good in rationality is our supreme good, it is our ultimate end, our happiness. This should also be in co ordinance with other goods like virtue, intelligence… This is the reason behind the fact that the most rational man that uses his virtue and other goods is the happiest man. This quote below further emphasizes this idea. The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind. (Book 1, ch.7) A good scheme would be as following: activity that is its own end is the highest end, and the highest ends are the supreme goods. Our supreme good, the higher end, is happiness. However, good is related to what we are unique at and this is rationality in our case, so our supreme good, that is our happiness, is our best activity of being rational, and this must come along with having other goods like virtue. We then came to discuss virtue from Aristotle’s point of view. So virtue is a purposive disposition lying in a mean that is relative to us and determined by a rational principle, by that which a prudent man would use to determine it. (Book 2, ch.6) This latter quotation explains Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, to that virtue is the disposition towards a mean between two vice extremities, the excess and the deficiency, and it is not a feeling. In addition, virtue is not just a mean, but it is the active action towards this mean rather than just being in it. Moreover, one can act in a certain situation according to this doctrine by aiming towards the extremity that is farthest from him in order to reach the mean. For example, being in a moderate mood comes in a mean between utter sad mood and ultimate happy mood, so when is sad, one should aim towards being happy by doing things that make him happy and thus will reach a point where he will be of a moderate mood again, which is the mean; one should also slightly aim more towards the extremity that seems better, and it is happiness in this case.
We then discussed the two types of virtues: the intellectual and the moral. The intellectual is learned by following given instructions, while moral is learned by habituation and practicing being virtuous. Thus behaving virtuously and practicing this behavior is the way to be virtuous. It is also only after practicing an action that one can know if he is good or not at doing this action; one cannot simply decide if he is good or not at something without trying it. Then come pain and pleasure that affect our virtues in which we do bad things to get the pleasure found in them, and we avoid doing the good things that are our job to avoid the pain that is found in them. This idea however, that good things are related to pain and bad things bring about pleasure is due to the fact that we were raised in this manner; we were taught this thing and we act according to what we were taught. Finding the mean can be associated with pain and pleasure by associating pain with the extremity one would like to get away from and the other way around. Lastly, the quality of the habit comes from the quality of the act, to that a good action leads to a good habit and a bad action leads to a bad habit. Lea Hanna Doumit Sakr and Ahmad Chahine. After having defined Justice as fulfilling one’s appropriate role in his society, Socrates turns to examine what it takes to form an ideal state. For him, this kind of state can only be attained by finding an ideal ruler, one that can assemble many good characteristics into one human being, a philosopher. They don’t understand that a true captain must pay attention to the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds, and all that pertains to his craft, if he’s really to be the ruler of a ship. And they don’t believe that there is any craft that would enable him to determine how he should steer the ship, whether the others want him to or not, or any possibility of mastering this alleged craft or of practicing it at the same time as the craft of navigation. Don’t you think that the true captain will be called a real stargazer, a babbler, and a good for nothing by those who sail in ships governed in that way? Socrates and the other debaters start then by listing the several characteristics that would make a man able to be an ideal ruler, in other words, they start searching for the definition of a philosopher, and its etymology. Socrates and his disciples emphasize the idea of wisdom and truth loving: - Wisdom: they compare forms, intelligent objects, to opinions, statements based on the senses. Wisdom must not be based on the senses, but on the contrary; it should be the manifestation of intelligible unseen objects that are the roots of knowledge and understanding. Forms are the objects of philosophers’ knowledge. - Truth: just like a person who loves wine must love all sorts of wine, a person who loves truth must love the whole truth, and nothing less. Philosophers follow the truth no matter what, and do what is just simply because it is just. However, Glaucon doesn’t seem to agree with Socrates’ statements, saying that artists, musicians and painters too love wisdom and truth. Socrates then comes back around to infer to artists as imitators of philosophers, where they only love appearances, and can never see the essence of beauty, only the appearance of things. Whereas philosophers want to know what beauty is, artists only want to know what beautiful things are, inferring to the Platonic love: beauty is in the love of the mind, it is a love that we cannot see. Socrates distinguishes between the one who loves true knowledge, as opposed to basic experience or education. He proceeds by saying that the philosopher is the only person that has access to ideas ― the true entities, the forms (example Beauty itself instead of one particular instance of beauty) ―. To support the idea that philosophers are the ideal rulers, Socrates puts in the metaphor of the ship of the state: "[A] true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship" Philosophers should also be clear-sighted, and have self-control (self-discipline): their only desires should be those of knowledge, wisdom, and truth, and not money and pleasures. He also adds that an ideal ruler should have courage in order to know what to fear and what not to fear. Socrates has then given the main characteristics of a philosopher, and for him, this is what an ideal ruler should be in order to attain an ideal state. However, he concludes that no man can ever be such, for this is too ideal of an image of a person, and thus one can never find an ideal ruler, and one can never have an ideal state. Furthermore, he says that if ever such a man (or woman) were to be found, they would soon be corrupted by society and would no longer be able to rule efficiently. Socrates argument then is that in the perfect state, a true Philosopher with comprehension of forms will facilitate the congruent cooperation of all the citizens of the city. This philosopher-king must be intelligent, reliable, and willing to lead a simple life. However, these qualities are so rarely present in an individual, and so they must be heartened through education and the study of the Good. “The highest form of knowledge is knowledge of the form of the good.” Socrates explains that in order for a ruler to be an effective ruler, he has to have knowledge, but also has to be stiff and steady. One cannot be a ruler if he possesses only one of these two characteristics. The guardians for example, are steady: they are able to stand solid in the face of fear and danger, but they lack knowledge, which makes them inadequate to undergo big imperial decisions.
In the next parts of the readings, Socrates focuses on the definition of Good, and how it helps a person to become a good ruler. By: Ryan Chami & Omar Kadi,
Unfortunately, this week we were only able to have one CVSP Class. Through the duration of the class; however, we covered the ending of Plato II – The Republic. Therefore, throughout this blog post one can find useful information regarding the Divided Line and The Simile of the Cave. The Divided Line:
Imagine that the lines were separated in to two parts. According to Plato they were not of equal proportion; however, the upper level was referred to as Knowledge and realism part, while the lower level was the referred to as the opinion part. The whole line falls under the big categories of visible realm and Intellectual realm. The visible realm can be thought of as the realm where there is light portraying that we can have an opinion unlike the prisoners whom were trapped in the cave. On the other hand, the intelligible realm can be depicted through an example, which is given from Socrates stating, “students that know math and geometry goes from the known facts to the unknown facts so that the unknown will be known.” Plato groups, according to this diagram, C-E together called the intelligible realm and A–C grouped together as the visible realm. On page 237-238 sections 509d – 510a, while Plato describes the line in the sense being that it is divided into two parts, being knowledge and opinion, that are not of the same size. One the contrary, he seems to stress deeply on the knowledge part and in my opinion it would be the larger dividend. When one sees a shadow, he/ she will not know the exact shape of the object until it is seen as whole, which falls under the category of illusion and can be related to what the slaves were going through most of their life if not all. Additionally, if one were to hear a voice he/ she would believe someone is there; however, according to Plato senses do not give us any sense of knowledge meaning this example would fall under the Belief category where one comprehends physical objects. Together the following two dividends give us Opinion. Plato sees math as one of the closest things to knowledge in this world, where the mind accesses things that are impossible to experience in the physical world. That is one of the main reasons why mathematical reasoning is placed higher along the line than the physical concepts. According to Plato the top aspect one can have is intelligence, if we are intelligent then our mind can comprehend different forms in our mind without anything in the physical world, for example triangles or perfectly straight lines. Together these two dividends combine to give us knowledge, man’s greatest aspects according to Plato. The Simile of the Cave: In the “Simile of the Cave”, Socrates is giving an example of people living in cave as prisoners, and they can only see what is in front of them. He continues by saying that the prisoners can only see a shadow from the light of a burning fire. Furthermore, he is also stating that if the prisoners can only see the reflection that comes through the thin wall in front of the fire then the prisoners will only be able to see the shadows. Leading to the assumption of, if they were able to talk to each other would they not assume that the shadows they saw were the real things? Prisoners only have an opinion since they cannot do anything but see things and give their thoughts towards how they saw it. If a prisoner were to be freed out of the cave, he will go through a series of hardships upon exiting the cave and heading into the real world. First, he will be barely able to see as he/ she will be blinded by the sun. Secondly, he/she can see his/her reflection on the water. Thirdly, he/ she can now see living things and objects abstractly. Lastly, the best feeling to the prisoner is that he/ she will be able to gaze and question the sun like any normal person living in the real world. At this stage if he/she were to go out and figure out the truth being that the shadows aren’t real, upon being forced back in the cave he would think that his friends are stupid not knowing what is truly behind them. The bad part for he / she is that he/ she will now be, in a sense, blinded by the darkness because he can see the light, but his friends can see the darkness not the light, so if they do some competition in the darkness he would lose. The remaining prisoners would now believe that the upper world had ruined his sight, and they would not even think to leave the cave. In the dark cave, it is all about opinions. Meaning that the prisoners had opinions concerning what they saw, but it truly was not knowledge. Knowledge is what is outside the cave, which is in the upper world (real world). There is a difference between one having opinion followed by knowledge than someone who has knowledge or opinion. In our reading, it is like passing from the dark to the light and vice versa. Knowledge is native in the mind of each and every one of us. If you want to put knowledge into one’s mind, you must turn his body to knowledge opposing dark. Socrates believes that we should not be born in the dark and go to the upper world, we should directly make our way into the light (Knowledge) and never go to the cave. However, Plato’s brother argued that not everyone should live in the light, because some people have to live a poorer life. Socrates argued that everyone should live in a democratic society, and that in mind unite to make the world a better place. After the discussion about life and darkness, Socrates talked again about the characteristics of philosophers, regarding how they should rule. Socrates is saying that philosophers should, after absorbing all the knowledge (light) they ought to go into the cave (darkness), so they can be enlightened to an extent and have a better understanding towards how knowledge is formed and can be used. Concluding the simile of the cave, Socrates also states that other philosophers from other states should go through the same process to have maximum potential. All in all many along with myself would agree to Plato’s quote, which states “Better to be the poor servant of a poor master and to endure anything rather than think as they so and live after their manner”. |
AuthorThis is created by the Students of CVSP 201 Archives
May 2015
Categories |