Forms

Since we have been talking about forms so much I figured Ill try and write on it. This theory is seemingly simple if you look at it in the way that we have been discussing it with the "four categories" on the chart that was made. When I really study it, its a lot more difficult to grasp and also hard to draw a line between the gray areas of the "categories". I can agree with most of Plato's reasoning on the forms, but I don't know if its made clear the ways in which one can learn to reason. Maybe I haven't read enough Plato yet. How can one be able to give well thought out reasons? Maybe by knowing how to distinguish "images" and "reflections" and concentrating on their root of representation. I understand that Plato thinks that works of art and drama are not good for this process because we are using our own interpretations, but on the other hand I feel that freedom of expression is so important to our culture and day to day life. This could get seriously tangled if one began to think about it. Does this mean we aren't to have any source of entertainment or sense of individualism? How is Plato not contradicting himself by giving us his interpretation of what he thinks is true. The way he was raised and the means of his culture gave a distinct way of interpretation and communication to him...How do we know what he perceives to be right is right if he is but a product of the same world we live in today? Is this theory really timeless, or has the growth of knowledge and everything else wiped out this theory or at least revised it?

Republic (Allegory)

So, I'm pretty excited that we are going to focus on the cave this week. Although this reading could be seen as simplistic in some ways, it really has a lot of validity in terms of society and also how one can come to know "truth". The allegory in my view explains how society can formulate our thoughts and what we think to be real "truths" without even knowing it. What we as human beings perceive as truth can be developed through experiences that force us to question our beliefs. The development of our perceptions can be made ( I think) through experiences of things like doubt or a break in habit. Socrates (Plato) talks about our seemingly "ready made" beliefs in the allegory of the cave when he talks about what I view as mental slavery. This whole reading is pretty compelling to me when I really think about it, and its also cool to think that my knowledge and opinions of modern philosophy coincides with Plato so much on the subject of truths and society. When I picture the cave I picture the fire being the "truth" or "reality" because he describes it as being above and behind us. I have read other philosophers that remind me of this subject and have influenced the way I think about people coming to know the "truths" of life. I also kind of feel like my wording of "truth" could also be compared to "reality". I feel like we are so compelled to know "truth" because we as humans are so complex and gaining an understanding of the truth compels us to delve deeper and push a sense of entitlement to the truth until we find it or what we perceive it to be. The world is such a turbulent constant flux of variables and maybe we strive for truth because its like the only constant we seem to think we have, like our rock that we clutch to...

Plato's Phaedo

This was my first time reading Phaedo and I noticed a lot of things that triggered me to ask questions about the validity of the arguments made by Socrates. The way he approaches his arguments are no doubt something to be recognized for, but I found some holes that I wanted to discuss about the soul. Other than the fact that the concept of the soul really and truly cannot be grasped by us as human beings (really the point of the whole argument), Socrates uses examples that didn't really convince me wholeheartedly. If we receive our divine and unchanging knowledge only through the mind, how are we supposed to create knowledge without the body? Going back to the theory of forms, he explains that there is a true essence of things, some concrete examples some abstract. The true essence of things is only found through thought (he says) because the body can hinder us from knowing the real thing. How can our physical being not contribute to "essence"? Using beauty for example, how does it exist without some type of image or experience? This is something that we cannot comprehend, because no matter how much we try, it only reverts back to physical being. He also argues that when things go from being living to being dead is through the process of dying, and things live by going through a process of coming to life (from dead to alive). This is his explanation of the theory of opposites. How can he say that these processes are the direct opposites of one another? He uses and example of big and small to relate to life and death. Big can get bigger or smaller, small can get smaller or bigger, can life get more lifeful or more deathful? Can death get less deathful or more lifeful? Adding to that, how does this all relate to the concept of the soul when he said the soul is unchanging (like knowledge)?...it is the body that is coming to life and dying then, not the soul.