Grasping the Hidden Meanings and Main Themes in Plato

It is said that of all the Greek philosophers that Plato is the hardest to get a definite handle on. There is a story that shortly before his death he had a dream in which he was a swan and that people were chasing him with nets trying to catch him without success which seems to symbolise this point nicely. So why is this so, that it is difficult for anyone to get a definite fix on Plato and know exactly what he means in his writings. Well firstly, he usually writes in a wonderful rich poetic style, and as with most poets he fits many layers of meaning into the words and phrases he uses. Additionally, many of the subjects he talks about require a lot of contemplation from the reader themselves, and as a result, we all ‘kinda’ finish up with a slightly different opinion or feeling of what it was all about after we read one of his books, or even a small section of a book such as one of his wonderful myths or allegories.

Now Socrates did not like this idea at all, that people all went away with their own different idea about what he was trying to explain, and this is definitely one of the reasons Socrates had for not writing anything down for general circulation (i.e. books) although he may well have made some odd notes for his own use. Socrates preferred to discuss things face to face so that afterwards his friends, students, or other associates could ask questions and then leave him knowing exactly what he had meant. This is certainly not the situation for many of us after reading one of Plato's books.

Even Plato himself, this great ancient writer and poet, says quite definitely in his writings that the written word is inferior to the spoken word when it comes to explaining philosophical matters. And in a way we all agree with him anyway, otherwise teachers would not need to turn up for lessons but simply post the text of their lessons on their websites. Similarly, business people would not need to fly around the world for meetings – they could just send an email. In a way we all feel that the face to face spoken word method is usually best when trying to explain something, and that somehow it will offer greater insights than just reading about something. For example, we have all had experience of the limitations of emails for conveying personal matters.

So when we consider further this difficulty of getting a fix and definite understanding on Plato’s meanings, we need to keep in mind that there were different layers of meaning in his books rather like a poet. We also need to realise that some things were purposely veiled and hidden by Plato in his texts so as to allow only his more experienced and trusted students of philosophy reading them to understand them fully and receive the full wisdom hidden within them. This quite naturally begs the questions ‘why’ did he choose to do this, and 'what' was it that he only wanted trusted students to know. And sorry, it is only a question …. and just one of several questions I will leave hanging in the air during this essay for your own further consideration at some other time. Philosophy teachers (like maths teachers) tend to ask questions rather than just give out answers; and we all need to ask ourselves personally why Plato put in the veils and the hidden meanings.

Finally, on this rather mysterious point of hidden meanings,......

......... Having made my above remarks about the difficulties of generalising about Plato’s meanings, let us now try and catch that elusive swan if we can and see what he is about. As mentioned I am going to divide Plato’s main ideas, or rather some central themes which occur often throughout his books into three main areas – metaphysics (literally meaning above physics laws), psyche and matters concerning the soul; and ethics – meaning more or less what is right and wrong in the way we live our lives as individuals and civil societies.

(From Essay 2  - 'The Nuts and Bolts of Plato' of James’ new book ‘Life Choice – Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’ - Extracts of p. 35 - 40)   

For more details and a description of this book click:  Life Choices at Amazon

(Available as eBook or paperback)

Socrates and Psyche - What Does It Mean to Be Human ?

......Now when I give this essay as a talk in Athens, I used to say jokingly that any atheists should cover up their ears for 90 seconds or so since I want to talk briefly about what Socrates has to say about the soul. However, as one young lady in my audience kindly reminded me at one of these talks, the Greeks used the word ‘psyche’ meaning literally ‘breath’ for the rational mind and inner self – which has been translated rather clumsily as ‘soul’ by most translators of the ancient Greek Platonic texts. Just keep in mind for now that the word psyche to the ancient Greeks did not have quite as much (or the same) religious baggage as the word soul has for us today. So atheists can feel comfortable about reading the next few paragraphs anyway, and I am grateful for the young lady in question for reminding me of the need to mention this point at this stage to any future listeners or readers. This point about psyche instead of soul is covered in a bit more detail in the next essay ‘The Nuts and Bolts of Plato’ and so I will not delay on this issue here.

What Socrates has explained to Alcibiades (in my previous blog post) is that what we (the self) actually are is ‘souls’ (psyche, essence) and that this ‘knowing ourselves’ is really about knowing that we are souls – at least according to Socrates and Plato. Socrates believes therefore that if anyone is going to take good care of, improve, or inform one’s ‘self’ better (and make better Life Choices for a good and happy life), then it is of primary importance to worry less about the material consumer type possessions and other man made possessions which are just added on to our bodies (like the shoes, the rings, the tools, the powerful political office, the titles and the celebrity) – but to ensure that we take good care of our souls and live in a way that is good for the soul. So the study of philosophy as it was meant by Socrates and Plato was not just about knowing on which date various famous philosophers were born, or what date Plato opened the Academy even though it might be interesting. Neither was it simply about what Socrates and Plato thought about democracy or how to organise the ideal city politically. Nor was the philosophy of Socrates and Plato simply about how to present clever arguments or discuss complicated abstract ideas. One of the central themes of Socratic philosophy was about how to look after our souls in the very best way we can, and nearly all the books of Plato deal with this subject in one way or another. For generations, many teachers of philosophy in schools and colleges have failed to make this clear to their students.

This idea that we need to look after our psyche or our souls may be all very easy to quote from Plato’s writings on Socrates, but what does it all mean to our lives today (if anything) and how can it help us, especially if we are not particularly spiritual people or even atheists. Let me try to explain by asking three quick rhetorical questions and then draw this first essay to a close. My first question is do you believe that we human beings have a soul, and that the soul somehow ‘kinda’ lives on after our body has died? It does not matter why or how you think or feel this but just whether you have that kind of feeling or not. I am not suggesting what answer is correct; but I do suggest that depending on the answer a person gives to this question, it will usually have a big effect on the way that person chooses to live their life.

Now my second question, just for those who do believe in something ‘up there’, is do you believe that the kind of life we live or lead here on earth will somehow affect the way our souls go on after we die? Judgment may be too strong a word maybe, since I am just talking about a vague sense that ‘good’ people who try to live ‘good’ lives somehow benefit in some way when or if we move on. (… and of course not everyone thinks that we do….)

My third and final rhetorical question is for those who do not believe in a soul which somehow goes on after death. Do you think that it is better to try and live your life in a good, kind, considerate, environmentally sustainable and virtuous way rather than living in a greedy, selfish, non-caring way? (Well of course you do – I hope!)

So my point is whether we believe strongly in the existence of the soul – or maybe just a little – or even not at all – perhaps we can all still agree that: ‘some ways of living are preferable to others’. The philosophy of Socrates and Plato is very much about trying to work out logically what those preferable ways of living are; whether they apply to us as individuals or to us as members of communities such as cities and countries; so there is plenty to interest atheists as well as spiritual people in ‘real’ Greek or Socratic philosophy.

Remember Socrates was very modest about all of his ideas, and this is one of the reasons personally why I really like him, and spend a little time investigating what he has to say on a few things, whether I agree with him or not. In another of Plato’s dialogues (The Phaedo) he says that even if he is mistaken and the soul does not exist and does not go on after death, he still prefers to live the life of a good and decent man rather than the life of a bad selfish guy, and so he says he has nothing to lose or fear either way by trying to make himself wiser and living the best type of life he can.

However, in contrast to this easy going attitude about his own ideas and whether you agree with him or not, Socrates also says that the un-examined life is not worth living. What he means by this is that providing ‘you wonder’ about a few things and realise when you do not know all the answers; and then assuming you have the curiosity to find out slowly about some of those issues; you will have started to become philosophers and lovers of wisdom yourself – as indeed Socrates hopes to persuade Alcibiades to be. If you then build up certain intellectual skills and techniques to examine things wisely and methodically you will be able to come up with your own well informed ideas and opinions on various subjects - and that is the most important thing to Socrates whether you agree with him or not. For then you will have become a little bit wiser as you go through life, and started to become real philosophers yourselves in the Socratic sense of the word. More importantly still, you will also have begun to ‘Know Yourself’' - and to know exactly where and what you are.....

FOOTNOTE:

Some important tips for young travellers, new philosophers or older searchers looking for the right path; and indeed for any lost tourists. (Actually, these were some of the discussion points for the end of my Athens talks on this subject. I include them now in case you would like to think about one or two of them while waiting for your next flight or train….. )

- Sometimes when appropriate, we are obliged to realise that we are in completely the wrong place we need to be in order to start the path we want.

- On long journeys, we only have to be a few degrees off course from the right direction we want to take, but after a while this can become a big mistake and we finish up in a completely different place to where we planned to go.

- Sometimes on the Athens metro we first need to get off the blue line to the airport – if we need or want to get on the green line to Piraeus and the port where the ferry boats leave to the Greek islands. The blue line metro will never get you close to the boats – it’s going somewhere else.

- Even when following the correct way of our own chosen path there are good places to turn left and right – or take a rest – as we go along. It is important to realise when these turns or breaks come along. (A little experience helps.)

- Changing course to go around a difficult obstacle, or taking a break for a while, is not the same as wavering from the path or somehow failing. Few paths are a simple straight and steady line - unfortunately!

(From Essay 1 of James’ new book ‘Life Choice – Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’ p. 30 - 34) For more details and a description of this book click:
Life Choices at Amazon (Available as eBook or paperback)

Socrates advises us to 'Know Thyself' - or do we already know what we are ?

My previous blog post discussed the idea of 'double ignorance' and the essential two qualities a philosopher needs being to 'wonder' about things and to have the curiosity to find out things when we do not know. This blog post develops this theme with a quick look at Plato's book: The First Alcibiades - where the question is posed: Do we really know 'what' the human being is?  This question in Socratic philosophy is often summarised as the need for us all to 'Know Thyself'.....

'Socrates points out to Alcibiades that unless we are aware (or at least have it pointed out to us) that we do not know something, we will not try to find out about that thing and try to correct our lack of knowledge in that area. Socrates says, as discussed in the introduction to this book, that we will fall into the trap of being ‘doubly ignorant’. That is; firstly not knowing something; but secondly thinking that we do know about it so that we do not even bother to inform ourselves and correct this lack of knowledge. Incidentally, an ancient Oracle (places where the future was predicted and where questions about all sorts of things were thought to be answered by the Gods) once said, when asked who was the wisest man alive, that it was in fact Socrates. This confused Socrates a great deal, and the only reason he could come up with for the Oracle’s answer was that at least he knew he knew nothing which made him a lot wiser than the people who thought they knew about things when clearly they did not.

It is no problem if we do not know something – providing we realise we do not know. These days we consult lawyers and solicitors on legal matters, and accountants about financial matters. We know we are not experts in these areas and so we consult with people who are trained and experienced with these specialist subjects. We talk to doctors about medical matters, and mechanics about problems with our cars. It is normal to do so and it is no big problem not to know something providing you are aware of it and indeed admit it to yourself and others when necessary. In modern day life we consult experts on a whole range of subjects. Presidents and Prime Ministers have whole teams of specialist advisors in different areas where they know they have little or no specialist expertise or experience themselves.

All simple enough so far….. Socrates has made Alcibiades admit to himself that he lacks knowledge and experience - with politics and affairs of State in this case. However, then Socrates goes a step further by discussing that if we are going to teach ‘ourselves’ about things or otherwise look after ourselves wisely (i.e. make the best Life Choices for ourselves), then we better have some understanding at least of what ‘the self’ actually is, and this is truly what ‘Knowing Thyself’ is all about. Socrates agrees that you have to know where you are before starting a philosophical path (or any other path); but he says it is also important to know ‘what you are’, and this is what it truly means to Know Thyself in the Socratic sense. Socrates is asking:

How can we look after something well (including ourselves) if we do not even know what it is?

So what does Socrates say ‘the self’ is; or in other words: what kind of creatures are we? Well he discusses with Alcibiades that there is obviously a difference between someone taking care of their shoes and taking care of their feet. He says that the shoes are merely added on to the feet and are not the actual feet them self. Similarly, he mentions that rings are merely added on to the hands and are not the hands or indeed the actual person themselves. Alcibiades agrees as Socrates explains by asking him more short questions to answer. Socrates then points out that there is a difference between the tools a craftsman uses, such as a shoemaker using a knife to cut the leather, and the shoemaker himself. In the same way the musical instrument the musician uses is different to the actual musician who again only makes use of the instrument. Such things are only used by the 'self' and Socrates wants Alcibiades to understand the distinction between the person them self and the things he or she merely uses. Of course Alcibiades agrees to these examples, and this may all seem very obvious to us and perhaps unnecessary for Socrates to explain to Alcibiades. However, Socrates is creating universals or universal principles and truths in his young student’s mind. Socrates is getting Alcibiades to follow his path of logic and the steps of his argument one step at a time, almost like a geometric mathematical proof. (Perhaps this is another reason why Plato wrote those strange words above the entrance to his Academy?)

Socrates then makes the distinction between the eyes and hands that a shoemakers or musician makes use of compared to the shoemaker and musician themselves. Alcibiades agrees that the shoemaker and musician merely use their hands and eyes but that they are not actually the shoemaker or musician. He goes on to explain that this is the same with the arms, legs, feet, etc. that while they are used by the musician and the shoemaker they are not the actual musician or shoemaker themselves; they are just added on to whatever the musician or shoemaker actually is ‘in essence’ and are merely used by them. Let me now quote direct from Plato's dialogue what comes next (First Alcibiades-129c/d):

SOCRATES: But the tool is not the same as the cutter and user of the tool?

ALCIBIADES: Of course not.

SOCRATES: And in the same way the instrument of the harper (musician) is to be distinguished from the harper himself?

ALCIBIADES: It is.

SOCRATES: Now the question which I asked was whether you conceive the user to be always different from that which he uses

ALCIBIADES: I do.

SOCRATES: Then what shall we say of the shoemaker? Does he cut with his tools only or with his hands?

ALCIBIADES: With his hands as well.

SOCRATES: He uses his hands too?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: And does he use his eyes in cutting leather?

ALCIBIADES: He does.

SOCRATES: And we admit that the user is not the same with the things which he uses?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: Then the shoemaker and the harper are to be distinguished from the hands and feet which they use?

ALCIBIADES: Clearly.

SOCRATES: And does not a man use the whole body?

ALCIBIADES: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And that which uses is different from that which is used?

ALCIBIADES: True.

SOCRATES: Then a man is not the same as his own body

ALCIBIADES: That is the inference. 

SOCRATES: What is he, then? 

ALCIBIADES: I cannot say. [i.e. I don't know... ]

Just notice that as soon as Alcibiades says: 'I cannot say' or 'I don't know' he suddenly ceases to be doubly ignorant on this matter. He had always assumed that he at least knew what he was - and so had not thought about it much. Socrates with his questions has suddenly made him realise that he does not really know 'what' he is, and that it is something he needs to investigate and think about from now on.'

From Essay 1 of James’ new book ‘Life Choice – Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’ (p. 25 – 27)

See paperback at: https://www.createspace.com/6627322

See eBook at: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540552624