PLATO.

0. Reading Plato.

I want to know what the important and significant thoughts of Plato were. So I try reading his best known work which is 'The Republic'. It seems like a good place to start.

1. Justice.

Plato's 'The Republic' begins with some characters trying to figure out what justice is. They ask the question: "what is justice?". The first main suggestion they come up with is that justice is "speaking the truth and paying your debts". And I think to myself: well that's just obviously false. If there was someone who lied a lot and also went bankrupt. I wouldn't say about him that he wasn't a just person. I wouldn't use the word "just". I would more likely say something like that he wasn't a very "nice" or "honest" or "careful" or "good" person.

So, reading 'The Republic', I find myself baffled by the fact that such an obviously crazy answer as "speaking the truth and paying your debts" is even suggested as an answer to the question "what is justice?". It's not just that it's wrong but that it's crazily wrong. It's as much wrong as an answer would be which said "justice is that gesture that people make with their hands when they want to attract the attention of somebody on the other side of the room". If one of the characters had suggested that then the others would have responded: "what on Earth are you talking about?".

And so then this makes me suspicious that maybe the Greek word which is translated as the English word "justice" just doesn't refer at all to the same thing that the English word "justice" refers to. The Greek word is "dikaiosune". My suspicion is kind of confirmed when I read a different translation (the one by Desmond Lee for Penguin Books) which has "doing right" rather than "justice" as the translation of the word "dikaiosune". The characters in that translation are asking "what is doing right?" rather than "what is justice?". But "doing right" and "justice" are quite different concepts.

(By the way I think that something similar happens with the Greek word 'agape' in the New Testament. Where this gets translated as 'charity' or 'love'.)

Furthermore. Not only is the answer suggested in ‘The Republic’ obviously wrong (and the subsequent suggestions the characters make aren't any better) but surely there are some obviously fairly correct possible answers which they don't mention. (Where, again, it is crazily strange that they don't mention these.) For example we could say that justice is being fair. Applying rules to people equally. So, for example, paying people different wages for the same work done would be an unfair and so unjust thing to do. We could add that the word "justice" is one that applies most aptly in, broadly speaking, legal contexts. So if an innocent person is punished for a crime they didn't commit then that's an example of injustice. Because it's unfair. I'm not saying there are no complications to this definition of what justice is but it is a lot more plausible than what is suggested by the characters in 'The Republic'.

So all of this means that, while it is true that I am reading what the characters in 'The Republic' are saying, I (quite literally) don't know what they are talking about. Or am I missing the point here?

2. The man and the city.

Later on in the book it seems that the line of argument is that we can get an answer to the question: "what is a just man" if first we find out what "a just city" is. This is a very strange thing to say. The rest of the book is just a description of what "a just city" would be like. And the conclusion seems to be simply that it is one where everyone knows their place. Which is an incredibly mundane and unenlightening thing to say. Surely what Plato is saying is more sophisticated than that! But whatever that is it seems I'm not going to find it by reading 'The Republic'.

3. Socrates.

Another thing I want to say here is that all Plato's writings are just an account of somebody called Socrates talking to people about things. Which suggests that all the ideas expressed are ones that Socrates (or whatever person he is talking to) expresses. Plato is just the guy who has written this stuff down. So how does that make Plato a great thinker? What if I wrote a book giving an account of Stephen Hawking explaining profound scientific things to people. That would show how great Stephen Hawking was. Not how great I am.

The other commonly held view is that no, the ideas expressed by Socrates are actually those of Plato. The Socrates character is just the mouthpiece of Plato. But then that's rather as if I wrote a book giving an account of Stephen Hawking explaining theories to people. But where those theories weren't what he believed at all! They were what I believed. It would be very wrong for me to write such a book!

4. Secondary material.

And I don't get any better results from reading "secondary" material, by which I mean introductory articles by other people explaining what Plato thought. First of all, every single article that I have read (without exception) starts with: "Plato was born in 427 BC to a wealthy family". And I think: I don't care! Does it matter when he was born? He could have been born in 427 AD or 1927 AD. Just explain to me what he thought. That's all I need to know.

5. The Cave.

Introductory articles on Plato will always describe (what is often called) the Allegory of the Cave. But this is basically just Plato saying: "Hey dude! what if actually we're all living in a dark Cave and all we can see is shadows on the wall. Shadows of things outside in the sunshine. We don't see the real things themselves."

To which I think: no, Plato, I'm not living in a cave! If I was then I think I would have noticed by now what with all the damp and the rats. And: what's so great about saying that maybe we are living in a Cave. So what? I could do something like that. I could say: "Hey dude! maybe we are living on the surface of an ocean. And that when we feel sad or happy these are just (unknown to us) manifestations of the falling and rising of waves." Isn't that just as much (or as little) profound as what Plato says? So there you go then, I'm a great philosopher too. But I'm not really! You don't get to be a great philosopher by just saying things. You've got to have precise arguments showing how you got to what you are saying. And I'm sure that Plato has got precise arguments to support his views on the Cave Allegory. And those arguments are more important than the conclusion. But introductory articles on Plato which give the Cave Allegory rarely give the arguments.

6. YouTube lecture.

Here’s a particular example of my attempt to understand Plato by consulting an introductory article about him. Which is this short video lecture on YouTube by Alain de Botton HERE.

Here is a transcription of part of this (in the video from about time 0:31 to about 1:57).

In my numbered sentences.

(quote)

K1. Plato devoted his life to one goal.

K2. Helping people to reach a state of what he termed 'eudaimonia' or fulfilment.

[...]

K3. Plato had four big ideas for making life more fulfilled.

K4. First big idea.

K5. Think more.

K6. We rarely give ourselves time to think carefully and logically.

K7. About our lives and how to lead them.

K8. Sometimes we just go along with what the Greeks call 'doxa' or popular opinions.

K9. In the 36 books he wrote Plato showed this common sense to be riddled with errors, prejudice and superstition.

K10. "Fame is great", "Follow your heart", "Money is the key to a good life".

K11. The problem is: popular opinions edge us towards the wrong values, careers and relationships.

K12. Plato's answer is: know yourself.

K13. It means doing a special kind of therapy: philosophy.

K14. Subjecting your ideas to examination rather than acting on impulse.

K15. If you strengthen your self-knowledge you don't get so pulled around by feelings.

K16. Plato compared the role of our feelings to being dragged dangerously along by a group of wild horses.

K17. In honour of his friend and mentor Socrates this kind of examination is called a Socratic discussion.

K18. You can have it with yourself or, ideally, with another person who isn’t trying to catch you out but wants to help you clarify your own ideas.

(unquote)

(The rest of this section is me giving a commentary on my failure to understand this. A short version of it is: He says at the start that we should think more. In sentence K14 he states this thinking more as “subjecting your ideas to examination”. But then he says “rather than acting on impulse”. As if “acting on impulse” was somehow the opposite of “subjecting your ideas to examination”. Which makes no sense to me.) 

So that's the end of the section "first big idea". I stop here to think about what I have heard so far. I think to myself: what? so Plato's first big idea is - don't accept "received wisdom", don't jump to those conclusions without thinking about them. Instead think carefully before you arrive at your opinions. Like that isn't just obvious anyway? We needed Plato to tell us something so obvious? That doesn't sound right to me. I was thinking this lecture was going to tell me about the novel profound things Plato has got to say. But this thing about received wisdom is neither novel nor profound. Already I am a little disappointed.

Even before that the sentence K3 says Plato's aim was to make life more fulfilled. But what does that mean exactly? I mean, I know what the word 'fulfilled' means. But what did Plato mean by it?

Sentence K12 says “Plato’s answer is: know yourself.” Where this answer is an answer to the problem of people ending up with false opinions of the sort listed in K10. But haven’t we already had an answer to this? Namely the “think more” in sentence K5. So are there now two different answers?

But the main problem is when I get to sentence K14: “Subjecting your ideas to examination rather than acting on impulse.” Which I was baffled by.

The first thing I do to try to understand this sentence is to get clear what the phrase “subjecting your ideas to examination” means. I assume that this phrase refers to the same thing as the “thinking carefully and logically about how to lead your life” which is what was said previously in sentences K6 and K7. If it does then the specific word "ideas" in K14 means ideas about how to lead your life. But if the phrase doesn’t refer to what I assume, then what does it refer to? I feel like I am (maybe incorrectly!) assuming in the absence of the lecture making it clear. Am I being unreasonable in expecting the lecture to be more explicit here?

Next I think: what does K14 mean? What does it mean: “Subjecting your ideas to examination rather than acting on impulse”? This sentence is confusing because it has introduced the idea of "acting on impulse" to an account of Plato's ideas which has so far just been about thinking, in particular about the problem of failing “to think carefully and logically”.

The text so far has only been about the error of reaching opinions without “subjecting your ideas to examination”. So K8 refers to the way in which we often “just go along with” popular opinions. Is K14 saying that this “just going along” is something to do with “acting on impulse”?

Suppose that, someone, based on very little evidence of the lives of wealthy people, reaches the conclusion that “money is the key to a good life”. I understand that this would be foolish. But we wouldn’t say about this person that they were “acting on impulse”.

The sentence is suggesting that there is some kind of opposition between, on the one hand, “subjecting your ideas to examination” and, on the other hand, “acting on impulse”. But what is the exact nature of this opposition? Surely the thing that is in opposition to “subjecting your ideas to examination” is just “not subjecting your ideas to examination”.

I guess part of it is the idea that when someone is “acting on impulse” then this involves them not “subjecting their ideas to examination”. But K14 seems to be saying something more than that. The “rather than” sounds like it’s saying that “subjecting your ideas to examination” is the opposite of “acting on impulse”. So you are doing either one or the other. So, if you are not “subjecting your ideas to examination” then this is because you are “acting on impulse”. But surely that’s not true is it? There are many reasons why somebody might fail to subject their ideas to examination. They might be being lazy. Or there might be some cognitive bias of which they are unaware.

Now it sounds like I am saying I disagree with K14. But no! I am saying that I am having difficulty figuring out what K14 is saying exactly.

Then I get to sentence K15: “If you strengthen your self-knowledge you don't get so pulled around by feelings." Is this sentence just a continuation (restatement) of sentence K14? Where “strengthen your self-knowledge” means pretty much the same as the previous phrase “subject your ideas to examination” (which itself was a version of the phrase “think logically and clearly about how to lead your life”). And where the phrase “getting pulled around by your feelings” means pretty much the same as the previous “acting on impulse”.

If sentence K15 is about causation then maybe it is the other way around from sentence K14. So sentence K14 suggests that acting on impulse causes failure to think carefully. But sentence K15 sounds more like that it is saying that failure to think carefully about how to lead your life (ie lack of self-knowledge) will cause you to act on impulse. But why and how would this be so?

As for sentence K16 I really don’t know how it relates to the others. Or what it means. Why is having feelings like "being dragged dangerously along". For example I have a feeling of comfort when I sit in my nice chair. What has that got to do with being "dragged dangerously along"? And (this is a minor point but) neither do I like the way the sentence is phrased: what is "the role of our feelings" supposed to mean. What role? Is this a stage play?

A very big thing here is the lack of examples. While reading sentences K14 to K16 I can feel my mind craving to be given examples. To me it seems that giving examples is the obvious thing to do when trying to explain generalities. Which is what sentences K14 to K16 are doing.

7. In general. 

All of the above is how I find a lot of philosophical writing to be. It's OK for a while but then I get to a sentence where I just don't understand what the writer means. It's as if they are failing to express themselves clearly. Maybe it's just me, I don't know. Maybe I am expecting too much in expecting everything to be clearly stated. When I get to an unclear sentence I think: why can't you just say it clearly. If there's something you've got to say then you can say it clearly. That's just a general fact! So just do that. Too many philosophers seem to be guilty of obfuscation and using big clever words (like "obfuscation"!). When I read I don't ever see much evidence of any great effort by the writer to make things clear to the clueless reader. Or maybe I am just being too picky and/or the only problem is that this kind of thing is beyond my ability to understand. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case!

[5 April 2016]

[revised subsequently]