why bother studying plato, anyway? (fwd) Ditto csp -------------------- Forwarded message ---------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:46:44 -0500 From: PEHME@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list PLATO <PLATO@freelance.com> Subject: why bother studying plato, anyway? Mark Ast asks: > 1) Do you take Plato's philosophy seriously? Yes. > 2) Apart from Plato's historical position and importance > (including, but not limited to, the fact that he was one of > the earliest philosophers, and he formulated many problems > that most philosophers of the past discussed, and he > introduces certain interesting and intellectually challenging > problems, and he was very influential in setting the framework > for discussions of issues in the past, and the fact that he > writes in what is often an easy-reading quasi-poetic > style...)--apart from these historical considerations--is > there anything in Plato's philosophy that: > > a) Provides useful and meaningful answers for the intellectual, > moral and practical problems of contemporary life? Yes. > b) Provides tools to make fundamental decisions about how to > think, how to act and how to live one's life? Yes. > 3. Specifically, with regard to the theory of Forms: There is no such thing as a "theory of Forms" in Plato. Hence, > a) Does it have any validity? No, the theory has no validty. > b) Can you in any meaningful or significant way use the theory > of Forms in your intellectual, moral and practical life > (apart from getting a slot to teach a course on ancient > philosophy)? No, as there is no theory of Forms. Anyone who teaches one in a philosophy class is not teaching Plato, but a particular modern view of Plato that is not based in anything in Plato. Nowhere does Plato refer to a "theory of Forms" nor does he discuss any "theory of Forms". Thus, I would suggest that reading Plato is far more rewarding than reading most modern interpretations or biases against Plato. Therefore, it is obviously better to ignore the so-called "theory of Forms" altogether as defined by our contemporaries and the recent past. > 4. Should we study Plato merely to exercise our minds and study > the (outmoded) ideas of the past, or can Plato's philosophy > actually be used: The problem is what is outmoded and what is not. > a) As an aid in studying modern problems from crime to education > to government (to choose just a few examples)? > b) Not merely as an aid (as suggested in the immediately preceding > [4a]), but as providing approaches or *solutions* superior to, > or more sophisticated than, those offered today by the social > sciences or the physical sciences? A very large assumption is made here that while there are definitely sophistical answers there are hardly any sophisticated or other solutions offered by today's social sciences and physical sciences, especially since modern social and physical sciences are strictly "theoretical" unlike Plato whose interest is in philosophy and completely concrete and applicable to everyday life. > 5. For those who believe that Plato actually formulated and advanced > a theory of Forms, did he succeed to any degree in proving the > existence of Forms--and does anybody who believes so, take the > proof and/or the Forms, seriously? Once again, there is no "theory of Forms" in Plato. It is a modern misinterpretation of Plato, a typical mistake, I might add, because very few moderns ever take the trouble to read Plato. > The answers received to date have been, virtually all of them, > emphatically negative, and even when I probe further, and ask 'Do > you know any other Plato scholar who really takes Plato's philosophy > and method, and his theory of Forms, at all seriously; whose life > and actions are actually influenced by Plato and the theory of Forms > in some serious or significant way?"; the answer is almost uniformly > negative. In one case, however, the answer was positive--I was > informed that one author,with whose name I was familiar, really was > now took Plato's philosophy seriously. Yet when a colleague of mine > happened to meet with the very prominent Plato scholar in question, > he explained (and then hearing this account, I recalled his argument) > that Plato never had a theory of Forms, and this notion (that Plato > ever formulated or advocated the Forms) is a pure fiction; rather, he > explains, one should study Plato only for his dramatic/artistic > qualities. While there is no "theory of Forms", it does not logically follow that one should study Plato only for his dramatic/artistic qualities. > Perhaps some of you will respond to the above group of questions. > Surely it makes a difference whether, in teaching Plato, you are: > a convinced advocate of Plato's method of philosophizing and/or his > theory of Forms; indifferent and consider them of no importance > except as historical curiosities; or, fiercely opposed. > > If anybody takes Plato to be of more than literary/historical > interest, please let us know what, specifically, you find important > or philosophically fruitful. I am assuming that these questions are in jest as that would be an intelligent. However, if not, I would state the obvious: One does not have to justify studying Plato to anyone, any more than Socrates had to justify his life to anyone. Whether people find it important or philosophically fruitful to study Plato today is of no consequence whatsoever except to the extent that our contemporaries may attempt to prevent others from studying Plato, which, of course, they will do, especially by propograting false notions about Plato and other ancient writers. Best regards, Kalev Pehme [Submitted by: csplanea@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:14:14 GMT] Up