Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy

brought to you by Ron Yezzi

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy

Minnesota State University, Mankato

© Copyright 2003, 2015, 2020 by Ron Yezzi

Return to Start Page

Return to History of Philosophy

Plato 1 - Introduction, Plato and Socrates, Reading Plato, Savory Info

Plato 2 - Plato's System, Phaedo, Republic, Theaetetus

Topics

What Impressive About Plato

Notable Quotes

Life

Plato and Socrates

Reading Plato

Savory Info

Plato (427 - 347 B.C.E.)

We are sure that Plato’s dialogues are a philosophical and literary treasure; but we are not nearly so sure that we understand what his philosophy was. He never speaks for himself in any dialogue. It is the nature of his philosophical method that he does not say just what he means in a straightforward way. He even denies that he has ever written down his own philosophy. So Plato is a Man of Philosophical Mystery.

Yet Plato’s work forms a wide-ranging, foundational core for the development of western philosophy. And there is a body of thought generally taken to constitute the Platonic System.

What's Impressive About Plato

Plato’s Republic―a work dealing with justice, human nature, the organization and leadership of states, The Good, knowledge, and education―is one of the great masterpieces of western civilization.

The Divided Line (near the end of Book VI of the Republic) and the Allegory of the Cave (beginning of Book VII) are among the Greatest Wonders in the history of philosophy.

Plato’s dialogues―combining philosophical, literary, and historical elements in dramatic form―present an original (sometimes imitated, but never surpassed) model for the presentation of philosophical ideas.

His philosophical system, centered upon the existence of Platonic Forms, stands among the five or six greatest systems produced in the history of western philosophy.

Plato’s philosophical method, his dialectical method―with all its intricacies of layered, contextual arguments from differing speakers and of continual re-examination of philosophical issues from different points of view―offers one of the great alternatives in the pursuit of knowledge.

His writings established a wide range of suggestive philosophical ideas that have become the foundation for much of western philosophy. In the often-quoted words of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

Plato’s dialogues immortalized the character and activities of Socrates, thereby providing an inspirational model for subsequent philosophers.

Notable Quotes

(Word to the Wise: While the following quotes are thought-provoking, remember that Plato offers them within the broader context of the dialogues. So you sometimes need to be careful in interpreting them. Because of the contextual nature of so much of what he puts into the dialogues, Plato’s philosophy does not lend itself easily to a set of aphorisms.)

“Then say to him: ‘What you say is true, that the best among the philosophers are useless to the majority,’ and bid him blame for this uselessness not these good men but those who do not make use of them.” (Republic, 489b, Grube translation)

“We should not allow into our minds the conviction that argumentation has nothing sound about it; much rather we should believe that it is we who are not yet sound and that we must take courage and be eager to attain soundness. . . .” (Phaedo, 90e, Grube translation)

“. . . what gives truth to the objects of knowledge, and to the knowing mind the power to know, is the Form of Good.” (Republic, 508e, Grube translation)

“For this is the truth: a city in which the prospective rulers are least keen to rule must of necessity be governed best and be most free from civil strife, whereas a city with the opposite kind of rulers is governed in the opposite way.” (Republic, 520d, Grube translation)

“Good education and upbringing, if preserved, will lead to men of a better nature, and these in turn, if they cling to their education, will improve with each generation both in other respects and also in their children, just like other animals.” (Republic, 424a-b, Grube translation)

“. . . no free man must learn anything under compulsion like a slave. Physical labour performed under duress does no harm to the body, but nothing learned under compulsion stays in the mind.” (Republic, 536e, Grube translation)

“. . . each pleasure and pain is a sort of nail which nails and rivets the soul to the body, until she becomes like the body, and believes that to be true which the body affirms to be true.” (Phaedo, 83d, Jowett translation)

“It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking.” (Phaedo, 99a, Jowett translation)

Life

In 427 B.C.E., Plato was born into a noble Athenian family that was well off and had a rich ancestry. His mother traced her lineage to Solon, the great sixth century Athenian lawgiver. His family had a history of participation in political affairs; and the young Plato apparently planned to pursue his own political career. Fortunately for him though, Plato was not politically involved―as were his cousin Critias and uncle Charmides (at the cost of their lives)―with the short-lived, ruthless seizure of power in Athens by the Commission of Thirty (also sometimes referred to as the “Thirty Tyrants”) in 404.

He came under the influence of Socrates about 407. We have no details of the relation between them―except that Plato and others were willing to pay a fine, in lieu of other punishment, before Socrates was condemned to death. No one would doubt Plato’s endorsement of the words that conclude his dialogue, the Phaedo, “Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend [Socrates]; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.” (118b). Plato’s own philosophy builds upon basic Socratic Themes.

After the death of Socrates (399), Plato gave up his previous plans to take up a political career. He also turned against democracy, the government that condemned Socrates to death. He did considerable traveling, apparently visiting Egypt as well as Italy and Sicily. He also may have begun writing his earliest dialogues.

Upon returning to Athens in 387 after a visit to Sicily, Plato established the Academy, a center of learning that survived for some nine centuries—although the school did not always maintain Platonic views. Writing dialogues as well as leading and participating in the activities of the Academy were his main preoccupations for the last 40 years of his life, until his death in 347.

Plato did manage to get involved in some political intrigue in the city-state of Syracuse (in Sicily)―through his close association with Dion, the brother-in-law of Dionysius I and the uncle of Dionysius II, who were dictators in Syracuse. His involvement never went well. During his first visit to Syracuse (387), according to legend, he was sold into slavery through the maneuvers of Dionysius I and had to be ransomed. At Dion’s urging, he returned to Syracuse in 367 with the hope of turning Dionysius II into a philosopher-king through Plato's methods of study. But Dion fell out of power and influence there; meanwhile, Dionysius II merely liked “the thought” of being a philosopher-king and the prestige of Plato's being there. Disappointed by this shallowness, Plato returned home. He made a final, terribly unsuccessful visit to Syracuse in 361 to try to serve as a mediator between Dionysius II and Dion.

Plato and Socrates

Plato’s philosophy is built upon a Socratic foundation. Yet the resulting structure goes well beyond anything Socrates ever envisioned. All the basic Socratic themes are there―but transformed, expanded upon, and systematized in Plato’s own way.

Socratic Themes I. and II. Socrates’ wisdom consists in knowing that he knows nothing; and Socrates functions as a midwife of the soul.

Socratic Theme III: Socrates seeks out universal, essential definitions.

Socratic Theme IV: “No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.”

Socratic Theme V: No one knowingly does evil; and virtue is knowledge.

Socratic Themes I. and II. Socrates’ wisdom consists in knowing that he knows nothing; and Socrates functions as a midwife of the soul.

As maintained earlier under the Socratic Themes, Socrates does not claim to know anything because he cannot teach what he knows to others. So he functions instead as a midwife trying to bring forth and test knowledge in others by asking appropriate questions. Accordingly, acquiring knowledge is a matter of self-enlightenment rather than having knowledge poured into you through the demonstrations of a teacher.

Plato retains Socrates’ important notions of acquiring knowledge through self-enlightenment and of the need for question-and-answer discourse to bring the acquisition about. Like his mentor, he appreciates the difficulties in teaching knowledge; but he goes beyond Socrates in being much more confident that his knowledge can be taught―although the process is complex rather than a simple, straightforward matter of explaining the truth to someone.

Plato’s dialogues offer our best insight into this complex process. He makes clear that the great majority of persons lack the ability or persistence to learn the highest truths. Even the most able and most dedicated persons still need direction and some amount of luck. The dialogues provide direction by providing a set of intellectual exercises designed to serve as a springboard to self-enlightenment.

Usually Socrates is the main speaker; but the dialectical method of question-and-answer discourse is much more elaborately structured and varied than we can expect to have occurred in Socrates’ actual conversations. The dialogues range well beyond Socrates’ ethical interests. Arguments are laid out carefully and form a progression that would be hard to attain in ordinary conversations. A schema such as The Divided Line lays out a structure for advancement in knowing.

Socrates has a lesser role and does not even appear in some of the later dialogues. The Parmenides produces challenges to Platonic philosophy; and the methods of The Eleatic Stranger and The Athenian Stranger appear. There are admonitions about too great reliance upon written and spoken discourse.

All in all, the dialogues offer a tantalizing menu of intellectual explorations―requiring disciplined study, yet with enough open-endedness to power the imagination.

Yes, knowledge can be taught, but not like cookbook recipes.

Socratic Theme III: Socrates seeks out universal, essential definitions.

For Socrates, you could not make judgments about, or apply, a concept unless you first knew what it is. So you cannot make judgments about whether or not persons and states act justly until you determine what justice is; and you cannot decide whether or not virtue can be taught until you define what virtue is. This then led to Socrates’ search for universal, essential definitions―that common element always present when we use a term.

Plato accepts this definition-seeking rule; but he makes a further leap from knowing to being. The common element is not just a product and tool of effective discourse; it is a separate reality. There thus arises Plato’s Theory of Forms―non-physical entities, permanent and unchangeable, that shape our physical world. The objects of our physical, or sensory, world are what they are through their participation in, or imitation of, Forms that exist in an intelligible, non-physical world.

The notion of a unifying common element also appears in Plato through a hierarchy that exists among Forms―that is, the Forms ultimately are unified under the Form of the Good.

Socratic Theme IV: “No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.”

Plato’s own certification of the truth of this Socratic theme is most evident in his masterpiece, the Republic.

He begins Book II by raising a provocative challenge: People think that evil befalls good persons, so much so that they themselves prefer injustice to justice, if they can get away with it; so justice is at best a reluctant compromise to deal with situations where they cannot get away with injustice.

Plato then proceeds to show, in elaborate, well-structured detail (Books II-X), that justice is both good in itself and has good consequences. Hence, it follows, “No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.”

Socratic Theme V: No one knowingly does evil; and virtue is knowledge.

Plato agrees with Socrates that evil arises through ignorance. What he adds are more details about the nature and causes of ignorance, as well as means of overcoming it.

In the Republic, he reduces human nature to three basic drives in the psyche―the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive―and then shows how an improper balance of the three impedes our ability to overcome ignorance. When reason properly rules the psyche, we are best able to attain knowledge. And in laying out the education of the philosopher-ruler, he offers a program for the acquisition of knowledge, culminating in a grasp of the Form of the Good.

In the Theaetetus, which attempts to arrive at a definition of knowledge, Plato lays out in technical detail numerous ways we fall into error, particularly with respect to claims to know based upon the sensory world.

Final Note: Plato’s celebration of the life and thought of Socrates should lay to rest any inclination to interpret Plato’s envisioned ideal state as a hereditary aristocracy that eliminates the worker-class from contributing persons capable of becoming rulers for the state. In Socrates, we have a person of humble, worker origins whom Plato recognizes as the wisest, most admirable person of his time.

Reading Plato

Many writings of ancient authors have been lost. So far as we know though, we have the complete writings of Plato, in about twenty-seven dialogues plus some letters. We even have a surplus, since there are some additional dialogues and letters where the authenticity of Plato’s writing them is doubtful.

A reader probably can grasp 80-90% of what passes acceptably as the content of Plato’s philosophy by reading just three of these dialogues―the Phaedo, Republic, and Theaetetus―plus the philosophical portion of Letter VII. So you want to begin with these. (The Theaetetus is, by far, the most difficult of these dialogues to follow, especially in the later stages. If it’s too much of a mind-burner, not to worry! There’s plenty to learn about Plato’s thought in other dialogues.)

This shortened reading list provides a very good introduction to Plato’s thought. But it is not complete. It excludes the early dialogues that represent more the thought of his revered teacher, Socrates. Moreover it does not include his position on a number of important philosophical issues―such as love (Symposiusm and Phaedrus), friendship (Lysis), and the gods (Timaeus and Laws). You also lose nuances of Plato’s thought―for example, the Parmenides where Plato raises questions about his most fundamental doctrine about reality, the existence of Forms, or the Statesman and Laws where he is laying out something less than the ideal state of the Republic or the Philebus where he considers pleasure in greater detail than elsewhere. Most of all, you may lose a proper sense of the complexity of Plato’s philosophical method.

Building on your three dialogue introduction, you may want to read one of the most popular dialogues, the Symposium, where the subject of discussion is love. It is a literary masterpiece and it contains important details about the the life and character of Socrates. It also includes an important philosophical dialogue within a dialogue, a discussion between a young Socrates and the wise Mantinean woman, Diotima, that culminates in “the ladder of love.” If you are interested in Plato’s philosophical position on love and are willing to forgo the literary and dramatic elements of the Symposium however, I strongly recommend that you read the Phaedrus instead.

Topics

Amazing and Not-So-Amazing Hints for Reading Plato

A. Written and Unwritten Philosophy

B. The Divided Line

C. Capabilities of Speakers

D. Outlines

E. Literary and Dramatic Effects

Writings

Early Dialogues

Middle Dialogues

Late Dialogues

Amazing and Not-So-Amazing Hints for Reading Plato

A. Written and Unwritten Philosophy

Plato wrote in dialogue form. Yet there are serious questions about the significance of his written philosophy. In Letter VII, written partly as a response to claims by Dionysius II that he knew Plato's doctrines, Plato asserted that he had never written his own philosophy. And toward the end of the Phaedrus (275c-279e), he raised doubts about the reliability and significance of written works:

Soc. I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of [written] speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence; but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not; and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves. (275d-e)

Plato stresses the need for live discourse―where questions and answers, as well as the defense of statements, reach actively into the mind, or soul, of the participants rather than focusing upon words cast in stone.

We can sympathize with Plato’s point about the superiority of live discourse and we can appreciate his denial that we can understand his philosophy simply by reading the written dialogues. Since Plato died in 347 b.c.e. though, he is not around to engage in live discourse. So we are left with the need to understand his philosophy through his dialogues.

We should recognize that each dialogue is not a literally true statement of Plato’s position and that his true philosophy lies somewhat beyond what is said in the dialogues themselves. Yet the dialogues still are the key to understanding his philosophy. We just have to make the right inferences.

The hints that follow provide guidance in making those inferences.

B. The Divided Line

The dialogues frequently proceed by beginning with a simple point of view and then, through question-and-answer discourse, proceed to more sophisticated levels of analysis. So a dialogue may have three or four ever more sophisticated levels of analysis; and you cannot presume that Plato is always presenting the best argument possible at a given point in the dialogue.

Probably the best clue to separating out these levels of analysis is The Divided Line. The objects and ways of knowing laid out there―from lowest to highest―have their parallel counterparts in the dialogues. For example, second-hand knowledge (“shadows” or “reflections”), that is, what is passed down by authority or tradition without any verifying or supporting argument, is the lowest level of objects of knowing. So a saying or doctrine passed down from ancient times provides a shallow basis for a philosophical position; accordingly, it usually turns up as a starting-point for discussion, to be superceded by the more sophisticated arguments that follow after it.

Therefore, in understanding and evaluating arguments in the dialogues, you want to ask yourself, “Where are they on The Divided Line?” Forms and Hypotheses occur on higher levels of the Line, in contrast with objects of sensory experience and second-hand knowledge that occur on lower levels. The higher levels are closer to adequate solutions to philosophical problems and are more likely to represent Plato’s own positions. Below the level of Forms and Hypotheses, you get, at best, likely accounts rather than certain knowledge.

C. Capabilities of Speakers

How far the dialogue gets in these levels of analysis depends very much upon who is speaking. That is, you do not get the most valuable and sophisticated arguments when Socrates is speaking with someone of little philosophical ability. This explains, incidentally, why many of the dialogues end with no answer to the problem: The person in the dialogue may be incapable of recognizing the truth; so no truth is presented.

D. Outlines

Try to outline the dialogue. The outline is useful in organizing the content of a dialogue and noting the transitions among different levels of analysis.

Since many dialogues begin with the attempt to determine the meaning of a term, an outline helps you to keep track of the succeeding, usually improving, definitions that appear.

An outline also helps you to note finer details of a dialogue easily overlooked, in particular, qualifications that appear with respect to claims made. For example, when Socrates concludes the discussion of knowledge as recollection in the Meno with the words, “And I, Meno, like what I am saying. Some things I have said of which I am not altogether confident”(86b), we need to note the qualification rather than simply assume that Plato maintains the doctrine of recollection as a basic truth in his or Socrates’ philosophy.

E. Literary and Dramatic Effects

You should not ignore the literary or dramatic aspects of a dialogue, because they may give philosophical insights, in addition to showing Plato’s cleverness or Socrates’ capacity for irony.

Myths can also be important as a way of giving an analogy with respect to what is the case, although I personally confess to having little aptitude for interpreting the major myths.

Writings

Over the centuries, scholars have used various methods to determine the order of writing for Plato’s dialoguess―including use of stylometric and linguistic tests especially in recent decades―with a variety of controversies arising.

I myself prefer a 1927 listing by the Platonic scholar F. M. Cornford that divides the dialogues broadly into Early, Middle, and Late periods of Plato’s life. The Early Dialogues exhibit most strongly Socrates’ thought; the Middle Dialogues develop the basic elements of Plato’s own philosophical system; and the Late Dialogues subject the system to additional complications and refinements.

Early Dialogues

Apology , Crito, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, Euthyphro, Hippias Minor and (Major?), Protagoras, Gorgias, Ion, and Meno [my addition]

Middle Dialogues

Phaedo, Republic, Syposium, Phaedrus, Euthydemus, Menexenus, Cratylus

Late Dialogues

Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus, Critias, Philebus, Laws

(Remember that these are broad groupings rather than the presentation of a precise order.)

My Sources

For my understanding of Plato, I am deeply indebted to Professor George Kimball Plochmann, my main mentor as a graduate student at Southern Illinois University. I have not tried to match his level of expertise; but most of what I say is a reflection of his own deep understanding, and teaching, of Plato. He published his own introduction to Plato's thought in George Kimball Plochmann, Plato (New York: Dell Publishing, 1973).The book also contains several dialogues, with accompanying outlines. Use of outlines and study guides as learning tools is another valuable technique for which I am grateful to Professor Plochmann.

Savory Info

The quotation from the British poet Alexander Pope, “A little learning is a dangerous thing,” is a wise warning to bring along with you in digesting the savory information about Plato that follows. Many of the issues have explosive appeal; but they appear apart from the larger context of Plato’s writings. This warning is especially applicable to issues dealt with in the Republic―where the context is an ideal state dedicated to the well-being of the society as a whole and led by persons of the highest wisdom and integrity.

You also want to make sure that you position yourself across The Great Platonic Divide in making judgments. Remember that most people base their judgments of what exists and how to act on the physical, whereas Plato bases them on the intellectual. So what Plato envisions may be quite different from what most people see.

Topics

Plato’s Omissions

Censorship

Lying

Platonic Love

Homosexuality

The Community of Husbands, Wives, and Children

Infanticide

The Status of Women

Plato and Aristotle

Plato and Mathematics

Plato’s Omissions

Plato’s writings as a whole include references to numerous figures in Greek philosophy and literature. Yet there are two notable omissions―as if he wants to show disdain for two competing positions unworthy of more explicit mention. His dialogues are rich enough to provide both alternatives and responses to these positions; but he avoids mentioning two competitors by name.

The chief competitor to Plato’s Academy in Athens was the School of Rhetoric founded and led by Isocrates. Yet there is but one explicit mention of him in the dialogues, near the end of the Phaedrus where Socrates refers rather ambiguously to a young Isocrates as having potential because he possesses some “element” or “tincture” of philosophy. There is never any indication from Plato though that he regarded that potential to be developed into an actuality.

Isocrates gets mentioned just once; but this is infinitely more mention than the materialistic atomist Democritus gets. Democritus’ materialism was in direct opposition to Plato’s idealism. Scholars generally agree that Plato must have been familiar with his work; yet there is not a single citing of Democritus in the dialogues.

Censorship

In the United States today, censorship usually is a dirty word; but Plato saw the matter differently.

In the Republic, the guardians, or rulers, have a duty to protect people―particularly the young in their upbringing and education―from harmful influences. Pursuant to this duty, they engage in considerable censorship of creative expression by writers, speakers, artists, and musicians.

The first area of censorship (Book II, 377b-383c) concerns stories about the gods. The gods are the cause of good rather than evil, and they do not act in ways unworthy of their divinity. Moreover, the gods do not change and they do not deceive anyone through visions. Accordingly, stories about the gods must reflect their true nature. For example, where the works of a Homer or an Aeschylus relate improper stories about the gods, the passages must be removed. In particular, humans must not be able to excuse their own misdeeds by being able to point out passages where the gods themselves act inappropriately.

The second area of censorship (mentioned at the beginning of Book III, 386a-391e) concerns the norms for human actions. Persons should face adversity without the fear of death or lamentations of self-pity; and they should face temptations with self-control. Accordingly, stories about gods and heroes failing to uphold these norms must be removed. The young are better off without being told, “Hunger is the most piteous death that a mortal may suffer” (Homer’s Odyssey). On the other hand, they have much to gain from being told,

“He smote his breast and chided thus his heart,

Endure, my heart, for worse hast thou endured”

(also from Homer’s Odyssey).

The third area of censorship (Book III, 392a-403c), a continuation of the second, applies to speakers (including actors), musicians, dancers, and artists. Generally, their creative efforts must uphold the norms of good action―such as temperance, courage, and high-mindedness. And their performances must avoid extremes― including what is extremely melancholy, overly soft, or unrestrainedly passionate.

The main focus of these censorship activities for Plato is the need to provide good influences on the young in their education, although there are indications that these activities apply for adults as well.

It is ironic that believers in censorship today might well use Plato’s own arguments to censor passages in his dialogues, too.

Lying

In the Republic (Book II, 381e-382e), Plato lays out four classes of lying―two absolutely forbidden and two more problematic.

First, most fundamentally, there is the essential lie, that is, a betrayal of the truth in the deepest part of ourselves. Such a lie is always detestable and always forbidden, whether in the activities of gods or human beings.

Secondly, paralleling the first class, is the statement of an essential lie in words. It is similarly detestable and forbidden.

Circumstances however sometimes may justify two other classes of lying―questionable, but edifying, discourses and medicinal lies to prevent evil.

Questionable, but edifying, discourses would be ancient tales that have positive moral lessons, although their truth is not clearly known. In such cases, we may overlook questionable elements in the tale and simply treat it as true. For example, someone might treat stories in the Bible this way.

Medicinal lies to prevent evil would occur as a means to thwart enemies or to protect friends or loved ones from their own madness or folly. For example, someone may lie to a mad person about the location of a weapon to prevent injuries.

Plato however wants control over these exceptional circumstances to reside with the guardians of the state rather than with citizens at large (389b-d). Just as preventive medicine should be administered by the expert in medicine, lies justified for the well-being of the state should be administered by the guardians of the state. In Book III (414b-415d), Plato goes so far as to suggest “a noble lie” by the rulers―in the form of a fable meant to persuade citizens to more easily accept their proper stations in life and to thereby better the condition of the state as a whole.

Platonic Love

Platonic love is associated with desire for a permanent intellectual, or spiritual, relationship. So it is not based upon anything physical, either romantic or sexual. Lust or sexual procreation are, at best, lower exemplifications of love that lead to higher, more meaningful relationships. Sexual procreation, for example, is an attempt to achieve immortality through having children; but this is a pale imitation of the immortality we experience when we grasp the unchanging Forms of The Good, The True, and The Beautiful.

In the Symposium (210a-212a), Plato lays out a “ladder of love.” At the lowest rung is the desire for an individual beautiful body. Next there is a love for beautiful bodies generally―followed by a transition from love of the body to love of the intellectual and, in particular, the love of good laws and institutions. This intellectual love then turns more generally to a love of knowledge. Finally, there is the love of unchanging Beauty itself.

Homosexuality

There probably are more references to, and bantering about, homosexuality in the writings of Plato than in the writings of all the other major philosophers of western civilization put together. There are numerous references to pairs of young men who are lovers and to the attraction of older men to younger men and boys.

The quantity of these references reflect the accepting attitudes toward homosexuality in ancient Greek society. For example, in Athens, there were laws against pederasty to protect children; but there also was a general acceptance of homosexuality. This acceptance may indicate the lower status of women in ancient Greek society―where the relation between two men was considered superior and more noble to the relation between a man and a woman.

As we might expect though from the account of Platonic love, Plato’s interest in any love between men focuses on the mind rather than the body. Thus the virile, charismatic (and drunken) Alcibiades, in the Symposium (216c-219e), speaks of his desire for a sexual relationship with Socrates but complains facetiously that Socrates is only interested in developing his mind and making him a better man. Plato makes clear that Socrates is physically attracted toward young men but always retains the necessary self-control to turn this attraction toward the advancement of the intellect.

In his last work, the Laws (836b-842a), where Plato stresses confinement of all acceptable sexual activity to relations between husband and wife for the purpose of procreation, homosexuality is supposed to be forbidden. And he likens its prohibition to the forbidding of incest.

The Community of Husbands, Wives, and Children

In one of his more tentative proposals for the ideal state, Plato lays out a plan for abolition of the family within the guardian classes of auxiliaries and rulers. By eliminating private family life for these two classes, Plato thinks that greater unity and service to the common good will result. When persons feel very possessive toward their spouses and children, as happens in private family life, they tend to pursue private interests rather than the good of the state as a whole. For example, they show greater preference and concern for family members than for others.

Plato's proposal for wives being held in common by all does not lead to promiscuity or fleeting romances in the ideal state.

Sexual relations are rigidly controlled, for the purpose of providing the best possible offspring for the state. Cohabitation would only be allowed at sanctioned, periodic festivals, where couples are matched according to their potential for producing the best possible children. Some young men who have especially distinguished themselves in war or other duties might receive more opportunities to enter into these temporary marriages. For the most part though, the overwhelming majority of auxiliaries and rulers would refrain from sex during most of the year.

At birth, children are immediately taken from their parents so parents never know precisely who are their own children. Some of these children are raised in a public nursery, some are distributed to families within the class of productive workers, and some (the defective ones) are allowed to die. Parents are expected to regard all those born during a three month period as their own children; and when this group grows up, all their children will be the parents' grandchildren. Similarly, children will regard as brothers and sisters all those born during periods when any of their possible parents were having children. Thus, each child will have numerous adults to be treated as father and mother, and numerous others to be treated as brother or sister; likewise, each parent will have numerous children to be treated as one's own children or grandchildren.

As a result of the program, according to Plato, the disunity and lack of concern for the common good engendered by the narrow allegiances and concerns of private family life would disappear.

Infanticide

In a brief passage of the Republic (460e), Plato suggests that deformed or defective children “will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be” in order to maintain the purity of the guardian class.

This is a clear reference to infanticide, which was a generally accepted practice in ancient Greece. In Sparta, a rigid eugenics program was enforced―with the father and a council of inspectors having a right to perform infanticide. Defective children were thrown off a cliff. In Athens, infanticide occurred through exposure, whereby parents brought an unwanted newborn to the temple where the infant was left in a large jar (to give others the opportunity to adopt).

The Status of Women

In contrast to the relatively low status assigned to women in ancient Greek society, Plato holds in the Republic (451c-457c) that they should have full opportunities to participate in the activities of the guardian class. So girls should receive the same education as boys and women can participate equally with men in the administrative or military activities of the state, including ruling the state.

Although Plato grants differences in the natures of men and women and he thinks that persons should perform the functions suitable to their natures, he argues that we must be careful not to ignore the common nature of men and women. Men may be stronger than women; and it is women who bear children. But when it comes to other activities―such as music or medicine or gymnastics or war or pursuit of wisdom―some women are just as likely as some men to have abilities and interests worthwhile to the state. There is nothing in their nature that precludes their functioning well in these activities (as well as others). So the state should recognize fully the contributions that women can make.

Before we leap to the view that Plato envisions men and women as fully equal however, we need to note a few qualifications. Although many women are better than many men at many things, there also is acceptance that the best men are superior to the best women in their abilities and accomplishments (455c-e). Moreover, Plato occasionally looks upon specifically reprehensible behavior as “womanish.” For example (Republic, 469d), “And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, and also a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an enemy of the dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fighting gear behind him,―is not this rather like a dog who cannot get at his assailant, quarreling with the stones which strike him instead?”

Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle studied at Plato’s Academy during the last twenty years of Plato’s life. But nothing much is known about what association there was between them in the course of his studies. It is definitely the case that Aristotle developed a philosophy different from Plato’s in fundamental respects.

Upon Plato’s death and the assumption of leadership of the Academy by a nephew of Plato, Aristotle left Athens temporarily. Later, he established his own, competing school in Athens, the Lyceum.

We have some gossip from Diogenes Laertius, a 3^rd century C.E. philosophical historian, where Plato supposedly said, “Aristotle spurns me, as colts kick out at the mother who bore them.”

More reliably, we have Aristotle’s brief preface to a critique of Plato’s Form of the Good in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book I, Ch. 5), “Yet it would perhaps be thought to be better, indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom; for, while both are dear, piety requires us to honour truth above our friends.”

There is nothing in the passage to suggest any personal animosity of Aristotle toward Plato.

Plato and Mathematics

According to legend, above the door of one building of Plato’s Academy was the inscription, “Let None Ignorant of Geometry Enter Here.” Legends may not be true. But there can be no doubt that Plato stressed the importance of mathematics in the development of a philosopher.

Plato notes that mathematics has many useful applications. However, it is pure mathematics, with its high level of abstraction, that he focuses upon as a fundamental tool preparing a person to grasp the ultimate philosophical truths.

In the Republic (Book VII), Plato allots ten years of study to mathematics in the education of the philosopher, from age twenty to thirty. The study includes arithmetic, plane geometry, solid geometry, astronomy, and harmonics. (Note that astronomy and harmonics are more akin to mathematical physics, in contemporary terminology, than to observational astronomy.) In each of these sciences, there are hypotheses―relating to points, lines, circles, spheres, etc.―from which we reason to conclusions. Mathematics does not represent the highest level of philosophical thinking because it does not certify the truth of the hypotheses that are its starting-points; but it provides practice in abstract thinking by requiring thought about intelligible objects and their relationships, independently of sensory observations.

Return to Start Page