Graduating in 1971 I began a Ph.D in philosophy with David Hamlyn at Birkbeck College, University of London. I’d particularly enjoyed philosophy as an undergrad and this was a natural development. However, soon in need of an income I applied for and obtained a research job in sociology, which offered the possibility of doing a Ph.D in sociology. So I switched. I have no regrets but have never lost my fascination with philosophy, and especially the interface between philosophy and social theory. I taught philosophy of science and social science for several decades to several wonderful intakes of medical students who opted to take an intercalated B.Sc degree in sociology as applied to medicine on route to becoming doctors. So much for the brief preliminaries and my rationale for offering the first in what I hope will be a useful series of short summary blogs on leading philosophers, past and present. As with my existing series of blogs on sociological theorists they will be short, around 1,000 words (see: www.grahamscambler.com).
This first effort is on the works of Plato (born around 428 BC, died around 348 BC). I read and studied his ‘Republic’, ‘Laws’ and a number of the Socratic dialogues in the past. What I shall attempt here is a summary of sorts of Plato’s main ideas or doctrines whilst throwing in a few comments of my own.
The degree of cross-over between the ideas from Socrates and Plato is not always clear, a matter made more complex by the fact that Plato chose to write in the form of a dialogue, never himself appearing as a speaker. Anthony Kenny in his ‘Ancient Philosophy’ suggests this allows Plato to ‘suspend judgement about philosophical issues, while presenting the strongest arguments he could think of on both sides of the question.’ But I will focus here on some of the main doctrines found in Plato’s work.
Significant among these is the ‘theory of ideas or forms’. Plato’s argument was that the physical world we perceive is nothing but an imperfect copy, a ‘shadow’, of a higher, eternal and unchanging reality. In the ‘Republic’ he deploys the ‘allegory of the cave’ to illustrate this thesis. He compares people to prisoners trapped in a cave. The latter mistake shadows on the wall of the cave for reality. Only when one – the philosopher in Plato’s account – escapes the cave and steps into the sunlight is the true ‘form of reality’ revealed. This theory of forms is a way of solving what is often referred to as the ‘problem of universals’.
In the dialogues Socrates repeatedly asks for the meanings of such terms of ‘justice’, ‘truth’ and ‘beauty’. Socrates’ fall-guys all offer ‘examples’ of each, but the main man insists on a division between material reality grasped through the senses on the one hand and the unseen world of forms grasped through reason. While the former is always changing, the latter is unchanging. Plato’s forms, in short, represent types of things. Individual tables, chairs and so on refer to objects in the material world; ‘tableness’, ‘chairness’ – as well as justice truth, beauty and so on – refer to objects in another world, Plato’s world of ideas or forms.
Typical of his time Plato gave a central role in his philosophy to the ‘soul’. The soul is immortal and gives life. He explains in the ‘Republic’ that it comprises three parts. These are located in different parts of the human body: ‘reason’ in the head, ‘spirit’ in the top third of the torso, and ‘appetite’ in the middle third of the torso down to the navel.
He draws on the idea of ‘reincarnation’ to assert that knowledge is a function of ‘recollection’, that is, of things one is acquainted with prior to birth rather than things acquired through observation.
As already noted, Plato rejected the notion that reality is revealed to us through our senses (the philosophical stance of many ‘empiricists’ through the centuries). Indeed, he regularly deploys the words of Socrates to underline his disdain for such a view. For him reality is revealed through reason (the stance adopted by many ‘rationalists’ through the centuries). It is ‘forms’ that are the most important constituents of reality. As we shall see in future blogs in this neophyte series, some philosophers in both the empiricist and rationalist camps have attempted to provide irrefutable, necessary and sufficient, ‘foundations’ for their accounts of knowledge (hence ‘foundationalism’). Plato was a rationalist and foundationalist.
We can equally briefly characterise Plato’s approach to ethics and politics. Socrates contends in ‘Protagoras’ that virtue is innate and cannot be acquired through learning. Knowing what is good is doing what is good. In other words, knowledge is virtue. ‘The Good’ is the supreme ‘Form’. We have a basic responsibility to seek wisdom, and it is wisdom that leads to an understanding of the ‘Form of the Good’. Justice is obtained when knowledge of how to fulfil our moral and political functions or roles in society is put into practice.
Plato is not always consistent on politics, Socrates varying his arguments and pronouncements (see in particular ‘Republic’ and ‘Laws’). In his blueprint for life in the city-state, Socrates maintains that there exists a tripartite class structure: (i) ‘workers’ – labourers, carpenters, plumbers, masons etc (corresponding to the ‘appetite’ part of the soul); (ii) ‘soldiers’, corresponding to the ‘spirit’ part of the soul); and (iii) ‘rulers’ or ‘philosopher kings’, corresponding to the ‘reason’ part of the soul). In general citizens are to remain in the class into which they are born, although some social mobility can occur. Soldiers best fitted to become rulers or philosopher kings are selected by competition.
Kenny:
‘How are the working classes to be brought to accept the authority of the ruling classes? A myth must be propagated, a ‘noble falsehood’, to the effect that members of the three classes have different metals in their soul: gold, silver and bronze respectively.’
The rulers are to receive an elaborate education in literature, music and gymnastics. Women as well as men can become soldiers and rulers. However, in Kenny’s words:
‘Members of the upper classes are not allowed to marry; women are to be held in common and all sexual intercourse is to be public. Procreation is to be strictly regulated on eugenic grounds. Children are not to be allowed contact with their parents but will be brought up in public creches.’
Understandably this blueprint has been damned as ‘ruthless totalitarianism’, most notably by Karl Popper in his ‘Open Society and its Enemies’. Plato argues that his portrayal of an ‘ideal state’ incorporates all the cardinal virtues: the virtue of wisdom resides in the rulers, fortitude in the soldiers and temperance (self-mastery or self-control) in the workers. Justice is rooted in the principle of the division of labour from which the city-state took its origin. In a just state every citizen and every class does that for which they are most suited, and there is harmony between the classes.
Not all states measure up to this Platonic ideal. There are five types of political constitution: (i) monarchy or aristocracy – this is the best system irrespective of whether it involves one or many rulers;
(ii) timocracy – this occurs when the rulers cease to be persons of wisdom and monarchy/aristocracy gives way to rule by military junta;
(iii) oligarchy – this occurs when rulers lack fortitude and military virtues, although oligarchs do possess something of the virtue of temperance;
(iv) democracy – coming about when oligarchs abandon temperance;
(v) despotism – involving the ‘enthronement of injustice incarnate’.
Thus monarchy/aristocracy represents the ideal republic characterised by justice, while despotism represents injustice.
Later in his life Plato largely abandoned the idea of the philosopher king and ceased to treat the theory of ideas or forms as having political significance. His initial attempts at providing a rationalist/foundationalist utopian blueprint for organising and governing society, which many understandably see as having totalitarian ramifications, might usefully be contrasted with contemporary versions of ‘utopian realism’, which set out to offer alternate ‘realistic’ ways of moving towards the good, or a better, form of organising our affairs collectively.