Extracts from Plato's Republic - The Myth of the Cave

 For talk in Athens - Thursday 23rd March - 2023

 

Extracts of Plato’s Cave:

(Plato’s Book Republic – 514a to 517a)

Translated by:  Waterfield, Robin. Republic (Oxford World's Classics) OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

The Prisoner Ascends from the Cave   (Plato’s Republic – 514a to 517a)

514a ‘Next,’ I said, ‘here’s a situation which you can use as an analogy for the human condition—for our education or lack of it. Imagine people living in a cavernous cell down under the ground; at the far end of the cave, a long way off, there’s an entrance open to the outside world. They’ve been there since childhood, with their legs and necks tied up in a way which keeps them in one place and allows them to look only straight ahead, but not to turn their heads. There’s firelight burning a long way further up the cave behind them, and up the slope between the fire and the prisoners there’s a road, beside which you should imagine a low wall has been built—like the partition which conjurors place between themselves and their audience and above which they show their tricks.’ B

‘All right,’ he said.

‘Imagine also that there are people on the other side of this wall who are carrying all sorts of artefacts. These artefacts, human statuettes, and animal models carved in stone and wood and all kinds of materials stick out over the wall; and as you’d expect, some of the people talk as they carry these objects along, while others are silent.’ c

515a

‘This is a strange picture you’re painting,’ he said, ‘with strange prisoners.’

‘They’re no different from us,’ I said. ‘I mean, in the first place, do you think they’d see anything of themselves and one another except the shadows cast by the fire on to the cave wall directly opposite them?’

‘Of course not,’ he said. ‘They’re forced to spend their lives without moving their heads.’ ‘And what about the objects which were being carried along? Won’t they only see their shadows as well?’ b

‘Naturally.’ ‘Now, suppose they were able to talk to one another: don’t you think they’d assume that their words applied to what they saw passing by in front of them?

‘They couldn’t think otherwise.’

“And what if sound echoed off the prison wall opposite them? When any of the passers-by spoke, don’t you think they’d be bound to assume that the sound came from a passing shadow?’

‘I’m absolutely certain of it,’ he said.

‘All in all, then,’ I said, ‘the shadows of artefacts would constitute the only reality people in this situation would recognize.’ c

‘That’s absolutely inevitable,’ he agreed. d

‘What do you think would happen, then,’ I asked, ‘if they were set free from their bonds and cured of their inanity? What would it be like if they found that happening to them? Imagine that one of them has been set free and is suddenly made to stand up, to turn his head and walk, and to look towards the firelight. It hurts him to do all this and he’s too dazzled to be capable of making out the objects whose shadows he’d formerly been looking at. And suppose someone tells him that what he’s been seeing all this time has no substance, and that he’s now closer to reality and is seeing more accurately, because of the greater reality of the things in front of his eyes—what do you imagine his reaction would be? And what do you think he’d say if he were shown any of the passing objects and had to respond to being asked what it was? Don’t you think he’d be bewildered and would think that there was more reality in what he’d been seeing before than in what he was being shown now?’

‘Far more,’ he said.

‘And if he were forced to look at the actual firelight, don’t you think it would hurt his eyes? Don’t you think he’d turn away and run back to the things he could make out, and would take the truth of the matter to be that these things are clearer than what he was being shown?’ e

‘Yes,’ he agreed.

‘And imagine him being dragged forcibly away from there up the rough, steep slope,’ I went on, ‘without being released until he’s been pulled out into the sunlight. Wouldn’t this treatment cause him pain and distress? And once he’s reached the sunlight, he wouldn’t be able to see a single one of the things which are currently taken to be real, would he, because his eyes would be overwhelmed by the sun’s beams?’

516a

‘No, he wouldn’t,’ he answered, ‘not straight away.’

‘He wouldn’t be able to see things up on the surface of the earth, I suppose, until he’d got used to his situation. At first, it would be shadows that he could most easily make out, then he’d move on to the reflections of people and so on in water, and later he’d be able to see the actual things themselves. Next, he’d feast his eyes on the heavenly bodies and the heavens themselves, which would be easier at night: he’d look at the light of the stars and the moon, rather than at the sun and sunlight during the daytime.’ b

‘Of course.’

‘And at last, I imagine, he’d be able to discern and feast his eyes on the sun—not the displaced image of the sun in water or elsewhere, but the sun on its own, in its proper place.’

‘Yes, he’d inevitably come to that,’ he said.

‘After that, he’d start to think about the sun and he’d deduce that it is the source of the seasons and the yearly cycle, that the whole of the visible realm is its domain, and that in a sense everything which he and his peers used to see is its responsibility.’ c

‘Yes, that would obviously be the next point he’d come to,’ he agreed.

‘Now, if he recalled the cell where he’d originally lived and what passed for knowledge there and his former fellow prisoners, don’t you think he’d feel happy about his own altered circumstances, and sorry for them?’

‘Definitely.’

‘Suppose that the prisoners used to assign prestige and credit to one another, in the sense that they rewarded speed at recognizing the shadows as they passed, and the ability to remember which ones normally come earlier and later and at the same time as which other ones, and expertise at using this as a basis for guessing which ones would arrive next. Do you think our former prisoner would covet these honours and would envy the people who had status and power there, or would he much prefer, as Homer describes it, “being a slave labouring for someone else—someone without property”, and would put up with anything at all, in fact, rather than share their beliefs and their life?’ d

‘Yes, I think he’d go through anything rather than live that way,’ he said. e

‘Here’s something else I’d like your opinion about,’ I said. ‘If he went back underground and sat down again in the same spot, wouldn’t the sudden transition from the sunlight mean that his eyes would be overwhelmed by darkness?’

 ‘Certainly,’ he replied.

‘Now, the process of adjustment would be quite long this time, and suppose that before his eyes had settled down and while he wasn’t seeing well, he had once again to compete against those same old prisoners at identifying those shadows. Wouldn’t he make a fool of himself? Wouldn’t they say that he’d come back from his upward journey with his eyes ruined, and that it wasn’t even worth trying to go up there? And wouldn’t they—if they could—grab hold of anyone who tried to set them free and take them up there, and kill him?’

517a

‘They certainly would,’ he said.

The Escaped Prisoner Must Go Down Into The Darkness Again To Help The Others

(Republic-519c/d to 520e):

‘Our job as founders, then,’ I said, ‘is to make sure that the best people come to that fundamental field of study (as we called it earlier): we must have them make the ascent we’ve been talking about and see goodness. And afterwards, once they’ve been up there and had a good look, we mustn’t let them get away with what they do at the moment.’  e

‘Which is what?’

 ‘Staying there,’ I replied, ‘and refusing to come back down again to those prisoners, to share their work and their rewards, no matter whether those rewards are trivial or significant.’

‘But in that case,’ he protested, ‘we’ll be wronging them: we’ll be making the quality of their lives worse and denying them the better life they could be living, won’t we?’

‘You’re again forgetting, my friend,’ I said, ‘that the point of legislation is not to make one section of a community better off than the rest, but to engineer this for the community as a whole. Legislators should persuade or compel the members of a community to mesh together, should make every individual share with his fellows the benefit which he is capable of contributing to the common welfare, and should ensure that the community does contain people with this capacity; and the purpose of all this is not for legislators to leave people to choose their own directions, but for them to use people to bind the community together.’ e

520a

‘Yes, you’re right,’ he said. ‘I was forgetting.’ b

 ‘I think you’ll also find, Glaucon,’ I said, ‘that we won’t be wronging any philosophers who arise in our community. Our remarks, as we force them to take care of their fellow citizens and be their guardians, will be perfectly fair. We’ll tell them that it’s reasonable for philosophers who happen to occur in other communities not to share the work of those communities, since their occurrence was spontaneous, rather than planned by the political system of any of the communities in question, and it’s fair for anything which arises spontaneously and doesn’t owe its nurture to anyone or anything to have no interest in repaying anyone for having provided its nourishment. “We’ve bred you, however,” we’ll say, “to act, as it were, as the hive’s leaders and kings, for your own good as well as that of the rest of the community…..

You’ve received a better and more thorough education than those other philosophers, and you’re more capable of playing a part in both spheres. So each of you must, when your time comes, descend to where the rest of the community lives, and get used to looking at things in the dark. The point is that once you become acclimatized, you’ll see infinitely better than the others there; your experience of genuine right, morality, and goodness will enable you to identify every one of the images and recognize what it is an image of.

 And then the administration of our community—ours as well as yours—will be in the hands of people who are awake, as distinct from the norm nowadays of communities being governed by people who shadow-box and fall out with one another in their dreams over who should rule, as if that were a highly desirable thing to do. No, the truth of the matter is this: the less keen the would-be rulers of a community are to rule, the better and less divided the administration of that community is bound to be, but where the rulers feel the opposite, the administration is bound to be the opposite.”’ c d

Plutarch and the E of Delphi (Part 1)

 

I would like to continue my comments on Plutarch - ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (circa 46 to 120 CE), who was a respected philosopher and writer throughout Greece and Rome, and was also a high-ranking priest here in Delphi before the destruction of the Temple of Apollo some 300 years after his death.

I remind Greek members of the group that in my previous post there is a link to Plutarch’s essay on this subject in ‘modern Greek’ for people to read easily. In the meantime, here are a few of the things Plutarch writes about the E at Delphi - pronounced EI.

The Speakers:

AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch’s teacher.

LAMPRIAS, Plutarch’s brother.

PLUTARCH.

THEON, a literary friend.

EUSTROPHUS, an Athenian.

NICANDER, a priest of the temple.

 

[James’ selected Quotes - Part 1]

‘Well, then, our kind Apollo, in the oracles which he gives his consultants, seems to solve the problems of life and to find a remedy, while problems of the intellect he actually suggests and propounds to the born love of wisdom in the soul, thus implanting an appetite which leads to truth….

….. We may well guess that it was not by chance, or by lot, that, along among the letters, it received pre-eminence in the God’s house, and took rank as a sacred offering and a show object. No, the officials of the God in early times, when they came to speculate, either saw in it a special and extraordinary virtue, or found it a symbol for something else of serious importance, and so adopted it……

…… That the God is no less philosopher than he is prophet appeared to all to come out directly from the exposition which Ammonius gives us of each of his names. He is ‘Pythian’ (The Inquirer) to those who are beginning to learn and to inquire; ‘Delian’ (The Clear One) and ‘Phanaean’ to those who are already getting something clear and a glimmering of the truth; ‘Ismenian’ (The Knowing) to those who possess the knowledge; ‘Leschenorian’ (God of Discourse) when they are in active enjoyment of dialectical and philosophic intercourse. ‘Now since,’ he continued, ‘Philosophy embraces inquiry, wonder, and doubt, it seems natural that most of the things relating to the God should have been hidden away in riddles, and should require some account of their purpose, and an explanation of the cause. For instance, in the case of the undying fire, why the only woods used here are pine for burning and laurel for fumigation; again, why two Fates are here installed, whereas their number is everywhere else taken as three;…..

……Look again at those inscriptions, KNOW THYSELF and NOTHING TOO MUCH; how many philosophic inquiries have they provoked! What a multitude of arguments has sprung up out of each, as from a seed! Not one of them I think is more fruitful in this way than the subject of our present inquiry.’….

….. IV. Ammonius gave a quiet smile; he had a suspicion that Lamprias had been giving us a view of his own, making up history and legend at discretion…… [James Note: A good general warning when we listen to some people or read their books….]

V. ‘No, the Delphic Officials’, said Nicander the priest, speaking for them, ‘believe that it is a vehicle, a form assumed by the petition addressed to the God; it has a leading place in the questions of those who consult him, and inquire, If they shall conquer; If they shall marry; If it is advisable to sail; If to farm; If to travel. The God in his wisdom would bow out the dialecticians when they think that nothing practical comes of the “If” part with its clause attached; he admits as practical, in his sense of the word, all questions so attached…..’

…… Just so, when the God puts out ambiguous oracles, he is exalting and establishing Dialectic, as essential to the right understanding of himself. You will grant again, that in Dialectic this conjunctive particle has great force, because it formulates the most logical of all sentences. This is certainly the “conjunctive”, seeing that the other animals know the existence of things, but man alone has been gifted by nature with the power of observing and discerning their sequence. That “it is day” and “it is light” we may take it that wolves and dogs and birds perceive. But “if it is day it is light”, is intelligible only to man; he alone can apprehend antecedent and consequent, the enunciation of each and their connexion, their mutual relation and difference, and it is in these that all demonstration has its first and governing principle. Since then Philosophy is concerned with truth, and the light of truth is demonstration, and the principle of demonstration is the conjunctive proposition, the faculty which includes and produces this was rightly consecrated by the wise men to that God who is above all things a lover of truth……

Also, the God is a prophet, and prophetic art deals with that future which is to come out of things present or things past. Nothing comes into being without a cause, nothing is known beforehand without a reason.

Hence, though it may perhaps seem a petty thing to say, I will not shrink from it; the real tripod of truth is the logical process which assumes the relation of consequent to antecedent, then introduces the fact, and so establishes the conclusion. If the Pythian God really finds pleasure in music, and in the voices of swans, and the tones of the lyre, what wonder is it that as a friend to Dialectic, he should welcome and love that part of speech which he sees philosophers use more, and more often, than any other.

For Aeschylus says: ‘In mingled cries the dithyramb should ring,……. With Dionysus revelling, its King. ‘But Apollo has the Pæan, a set and sober music. Apollo is ever ageless and young; Dionysus has many forms and many shapes as represented in paintings and sculpture, which attribute to Apollo smoothness and order and a gravity with no admixture, to Dionysus a blend of sport and sauciness with seriousness and frenzy:…..’

XVII. Ammonius, as one who himself gave Mathematics no mean place in Philosophy, was pleased at the course the conversation was taking, and said: ‘It is not worth our while to answer our young friends with too absolute accuracy on these points; I will only observe that any one of the numbers will provide not a few points for those who choose to sing its praises. Why speak about the others? Apollo’s holy “Seven” will take up all one day before we have exhausted its powers. Are we then to show the Seven Wise Men at odds with common usage, and “the time which runs”, and to suppose that they ousted the “Seven” from its pre-eminence before the God, and consecrated the “Five” as perhaps more appropriate? ‘My own view is that the letter signifies neither number, nor order, nor conjunction, nor any other omitted part of speech;

----------

I will conclude my comments on this text ‘The E at Delphi’ next time by giving an outline of what Ammonius (the teacher of Plutarchos) thinks is the reason for the E. We should note that Plutarch significantly leaves his teacher’s views and comments to last to conclude his piece.

James.

Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris' and some deeper philosophical wisdom.....

 A few words about why I like Plutarch (Πλούταρχος) – and some clues to the richness and wisdom one can find in his writings.

Firstly, let me say that I am talking about the ‘real’ or ‘famous’ ’ Plutarch, well to my mind at least. He is usually known as ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (a city in central Greece) and lived around  46 CE and died around 120.    (In other words, this is not the latter Plutarch of Athens who lived around 350 – 430 CE and was one of the latter Neo Platonist group of that time – a group that I personally have mixed feelings about…… but that is something for another day.)

Plutarch was born into a wealthy and well connected family and received the best possible education.  He travelled to Asia minor and Egypt – and later made a series of visits to Rome where he was given official recognition by the emperors Trajan and Hadrian, which added to his fame.  

He writes in a popular / accessible and practical way…. You will know what Plutarch was getting at after you read the one of his essays – even if you do not agree with him about everything.   If you prefer reading this with specialist vocabulary, supposed esoteric hidden meanings, and the discussion of very vague abstract ideas opened to interpretation or esoteric deliberations - then I think this Plutarch will not be to your taste.

However, if like me - you are not put off by down to earth and straightforward philosophical writing, I think it is fair to say Plutarch’s essays contain a rich source of spiritual and philosophical guidance and nourishment; along with several suggested pitfalls to avoid in a quest to lead a more philosophical life. Keep in mind, he also held responsible positions here in Delphi in the priesthoods there…and was very well respected here. When he speaks about ‘certain’ spiritual things – albeit in a simple and straightforward way - we should consider at least that he not only knows what he is talking about – but has an understanding of these deeper things as well.

Personally, I try to read some Plutarch every year or two at least…… to remind myself of the wisdom within his writings about how to live, and what kinds of attitudes we should have towards other people……

When I hear some modern commentators relegate Plutarch to the side lines simply - because he uses down to earth and very understandable language - I am not that impressed. After all, Socrates himself (who lived some 400 years before Plutarch ) warns us about just accepting ‘clever or stylish  arguments’ over ideas that are presented simply and in a straightforward manner. Socrates is very critical of rhetoric (basically the art of persuasion and clever speech making) - if it is in the wrong hands. By this Socrates means, if the speaker however elegant and polished, does not really what they are talking about and just pretends they do, or is deliberately trying to mislead is audience.…… as is often the case with our political leaders, or people who perhaps are trying to persuade us to buy things we don’t want, or do things that are not good for us.

Plutarch wrote two main works which have come down to us today:

..... One was the more well know Parallel Lives of outstanding Greek and Roman leaders – which deliberately and cleverly compares two leaders at a time who may have different characters or outlooks on certain matters; so the descriptions are very ‘philosophical’ as well, and not just historical.

The second lesser well know work (book) is conventionally known as The Moralia which is a Latin translation of a Greek term for ‘Moral Pieces’ (ēthika), – which comprised of some 26 essays on various subjects – not just moral subjects as we might suppose. (Incidentally, Plutarch’s son, Lamprias, is attributed with compiling and editing his father’s essays and papers into books after Plutarch’s death.)

Within The Moralia Plutarch writes an essay explaining The E at Delphi, and I will make a few comments about this over the next week or two.  Greek members of this group can read Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris, and about the E in Delphi from:

https://www.kaktos.gr/el/authors/archaioi-suggrafeis/ploutarchos/ploutarhos-ithika-10-978-960-352-354-3.html

However, let me finish this post by telling you some of the more unusual things (but very straightforward and important things) Plutarch says within his essay on the Gods Isis and Osiris.  I feel these are importance quotes to share with people who are on the philosophical path….

Some Quotes from Plutarch’s essay on Isis and Osiris

(Plutarch is talking to a friend, Clea, in Delphi)

🔑All good things, my dear Clea, sensible men must ask from the gods; and especially do we pray that from those mighty gods we may, in our quest, gain a knowledge of themselves, so far as such a thing is attainable by men. For we believe that there is nothing more important for man to receive, or more ennobling for God of His grace to grant, than the truth.

🔑For the Deity is not blessed by reason of his possession of gold and silver, nor strong because of thunder and lightning, but through knowledge and intelligence.

🔑Therefore, the effort to arrive at the Truth, and especially the truth about the gods, is a longing for the divine. For the search for truth requires for its study and investigation the consideration of sacred subjects, and it is a work more hallowed than any form of holy living or temple service; and, not least of all, it is well-pleasing to that goddess whom you worship, a goddess exceptionally wise and a lover of wisdom, to whom, as her name at least seems to indicate, knowledge and understanding are in the highest degree appropriate. For Isis is a Greek word,…..

🔑.....for she is wise, and discloses the divine mysteries to those who truly and justly have the name of “bearers of the sacred vessels” and “wearers of the sacred robes.” These are they who within their own soul, as though within a casket, bear the sacred writings about the gods clear of all superstition and pedantry; and they cloak them with secrecy, thus giving intimation, some dark and shadowy, some clear and bright, of their concepts about the gods, intimations of the same sort as are clearly evidenced in the wearing of the sacred garb. ……

🔑 It is a fact, Clea, that having a beard and wearing a coarse cloak does not make philosophers, nor does dressing in linen and shaving the hair make votaries of Isis; but the true votary of Isis is he/she who has legitimately received what is set forth in the ceremonies connected with these gods, and uses reason in investigating and in studying the truth contained therein…

🔑 But for all this there is only one true reason, which is to be found in the words of Plato: “for the Impure to touch the Pure is contrary to divine ordinance.”  [Note: This is particularly important for readers searching for the truth, the beautiful, the good or the divine….]

🔑 In Saïs the statue of Athena, whom they believe to be Isis, bore the inscription: “I am all that has been, and is, and shall be, and my robe no mortal has yet uncovered.” Moreover, most people believe that Amoun is the name given to Zeus in the land of the Egyptians, a name which we, with a slight alteration, pronounce Ammon. But Manetho of Sebennytus dthinks that the meaning “concealed” or “concealment” lies in this word.

🔑 When they, therefore, address the supreme god, whom they believe to be the same as the Universe, as if he were invisible and concealed, and implore him to make himself visible and manifest to them, they use the word “Amoun”; so great, then, was the circumspection of the Egyptians in their wisdom touching all that had to do with the gods. 10 1 Witness to this also are the wisest of the Greeks: Solon, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, who came to Egypt and consorted with the priests; and in this number some would include Lycurgus also.

🔑 ……and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal’s watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom,b since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks. Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters.

🔑 If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.

🔑 Moreover, Lysippus the sculptor was quite right in his disapproval of the painter Apelles, because Apelles in his portrait of Alexander had represented him with a thunderbolt in his hand, whereas he himself had represented Alexander holding a spear, the glory of which no length of years could ever dim, since it was truthful and was his by right. 25 1 Better, therefore, is the judgment of those who hold that the stories about Typhon, Osiris, and Isis, are records of experiences of neither gods nor men, but of demigods, ewhom Plato and Pythagoras and Xenocrates and Chrysippus, following the lead of early writers on sacred subjects, allege to have been stronger than men and, in their might, greatly surpassing our nature, yet not possessing the divine quality unmixed and uncontaminated, but with a share also in the nature of the soul and in the perceptive faculties of the body, and with a susceptibility to pleasure and pain and to whatsoever other experience is incident to these mutations, and is the source of much disquiet in some and of less in others. For in demigods, as in men, there are divers degrees of virtue and vice.

🔑 The assumption, then, is that the demigods (or daemons) have a complex and inconsistent nature and purpose; wherefore

🔑 …..That Osiris is identical with Dionysus who could more fittingly know than yourself, Clea? For you are at the head of the inspired maidens of Delphi, and have been consecrated by your father and mother in the holy rites of Osiris. If, however, for the benefit of others it is needful to adduce proofs of this identity, let us leave undisturbed what may not be told, but the public ceremonies which the priests perform in the burial of the Apis, when they convey his body on an improvised bier, do not in any way come short of a Bacchic procession; for they fasten skins of fawns about themselves, and carry Bacchic wands and indulge in shoutings and movements exactly as do those who are under the spell of the Dionysiac ecstasies.

🔑 The Egyptians, as has already been stated, point out tombs of Osiris in many places, and the people of Delphi believe that the remains of Dionysus rest with them close beside the oracle; and the Holy Ones offer a secret sacrifice in the shrine of Apollo whenever the devotees of Dionysus wake the God of the Mystic Basket.

🔑 We must not treat legend as it were history at all, but we should adopt that which is appropriate in each legend in accordance with its verisimilitude.

Where Does Evil Come From - Is Proclus Right ? - Or Darth Vader ?

 

From:  Life Choices - Important tips from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

By James Head (New Edition – June 2020 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540552624 )

From Essay 2 - The Nuts and Bolts of Plato

…….. My final point in this section on metaphysics is that Plato believes that the universe and everything in it has been created or has flowed out of the one source of everything, which is beyond all description, and which he calls ‘the One’ and/or ‘the Good’. This of course is an interesting idea for a man like Plato who was born and brought up as a polytheist to believe in the Olympic religion with many Gods. One thing I also find particularly interesting here (and a little irritating if I am honest) is that although he says that the One is beyond all description (in an almost scientific way) he then describes the One as the Good, which kind of adds a religious kind of dimension or overtone to it all. Plato also says that everything that flows out of the One is also good and perfect, but the further away things get from the One (the source of all things) the less perfect they become.

If everything that flows out of the One is good and perfect, then why is there evil and suffering in the world you may ask? Socrates advises us in many of his conversations with people, that it is wise before you start to discuss something, that you define exactly what you mean by the term being discussed - i.e. evil in this case. Is it a divine and malignant force operating in the universe (as suggested in the Star Wars movies or some major organised religions today) that affects us all if we are not very careful; or is it simply when human beings make badly judged, selfish, or irrational actions?

 For example, when a lioness jumps on an antelope and savagely kills it to feed her cubs, we usually do not regard that as evil at all; we just think of this as part of ‘nature’. However, when a man kills his neighbour for no apparent reason, of course we are shocked and consider it in some way an evil thing to do, since we consider the human being to be a civilised creature, capable of rational choices, and therefore having the facility to choose to act wisely and decently towards other people. So in a Platonic world view, evil (which is mainly what we tend to call certain ways of behaving) is really a lack of good intent or action, or the lack of control over one’s desires, or in the case of a madman – the lack of a correctly functioning rational mind.

Similarly, and more simply perhaps, if an earthquake kills 200 people, again we do not regard it as evil – just an act of nature; whereas the religious fanatic that blows up a passenger plane with 200 people on board we ‘regard’ as evil; since he lacks moderation in his religious beliefs and actions. Note that moderation (or temperance) is the visible expression of ‘The Good’, and as far as we human beings are concerned, largely concerned with the Life Choices we make.

I think as philosophers we need to consider whether good and evil really are external forces acting in the world around us (or even throughout the universe), or are they simply just human qualities; since we all seem to have the possibility of good and evil choices and actions within us. Hopefully, we choose ‘good’ (or at least ‘relatively good’) actions over evil ones. However, sometimes the situation gets a little blurred since if you killed 10 enemy soldiers in a war you might well receive a medal from your government for doing so. On the other hand, were you to kill the same 10 soldiers after the war had ended as they enjoyed a drink and discussed old stories of the war, you would no doubt be arrested and put on trial for murder.

Somehow, I want to believe in evil as an external force (you can blame the movie Star Wars and Darth Vader for that), but at times I am really not convinced whether evil is an external force or not. Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if the whole idea of ‘evil’ is a man-made concept rather than any external force operating in the universe; which we need to do our utmost to avoid. As far as our practical lives are concerned (in our human bodies at least), good and evil may be simply be about the choices we make as individuals and communities; and the choices and decisions our leaders and organisations of influence (e.g. the banks, the media, the Justice Department, and other powerful bodies) make on our behalf. Nevertheless, most organised religions with influence in our modern world today promote the idea of evil as being some kind of divine power, and give various explanations of how it came into being in the first place (fallen angles etc), and how it operates - and who it operates on and through. What do you think? (My concern is that evil is usually thought of as being abstract and ‘out there’ somewhere – when in fact it is all around us, and manifests itself in very ordinary things like: people selling us stuff we do not need and getting people into debt, a culture of fear and insecurity, a reduction in quality leisure time, wars we do not really need, good people turning a blind eye to what they know is very wrong, and  the corruption and dumbing down of young minds. I refer to these things as ‘the circles of evil’.

We all need to try and make sense of the universe, our place within it, and why things happen the way they do all around us. Therefore, if someone prefers to think of ‘evil’ as an external force (as indeed it may well be although I have expressed some personal doubts above on this), and this helps them to deal with and understand things better, and make better life choices as a result, then I see no harm per se in that.

According to the latter Neo Platonist Proclus in his essay ‘On the Subsistence of Evil’ (Proclus’ Theology of Plato - Book I Chapter XVII), once the unfolding of the One or the Good gets as far as producing a temporal universe full of time-bound lives (like ours), then it will be necessary that temporal things come to an end. This, according to Proclus (and remember there is controversy about some of the Neo Platonist explanations of Plato’s texts) explains why our physical bodies eventually fail. It is in order to make room for further bodies to take their place; and this is not evil in itself. However, if a perpetual thing such as a human soul (in Plato's view at least) identifies itself with a temporal physical body; then the process of decay and death ‘appears’ like an evil to that individual. However, perhaps this is a mistake of perspective, since no harm can really come to a soul from the demise of the physical body. Indeed, the only real harm that can come to us (that is, our souls if we have one) is through our own acts of injustice which is a ‘disease of the soul’. Proclus calls the first kind of evil ‘natural’ and not really evil at all, and the second kind unnatural, since in his view it can only be the result of a creature with free will acting ignorantly or irrationally.......

 

Footnote:

If you find this subject interesting check out my earlier post (23rd June 2018 - see archive) on this subject that includes some additional points for consideration. 

I particular I mention:

          ‘Additionally, if good and evil are in some way linked (as are pain and pleasure as previously discussed above regarding the removal of Socrates chains) it would suggest that all of us have the potential for evil thoughts and deeds unless we are careful with our thoughts and actions - and have control and discipline over our desires, tempers, and other emotions. We might do well therefore, to consider ways that encourage us and help us to keep our emotions under control; and how to avoid things that slowly lead us towards bad and evil acts. For example, the police officer who accepts a small bribe this month from a drug dealer for a small favour- is likely to find him or herself is at risk a month or 2 later of being forced to take another bribe for a much more serious favour. The person who makes small false declarations with their company expenses this month, is more likely in a month or 2 to make bigger force declarations - and risk losing their good name, job and most importantly for philosophers – VIRTUE.

       In my view, we have to be real careful about things that tempt us towards small acts of badness or corruption, since these small steps lead us down the start of a path that may be difficult to stop once we had started.

       As in Plato’s Phaedrus - the charioteer must try to use the horse which is good and noble, rather than that which is ugly, selfish, brutish, and bad in every other way.’

Plotinus’ Treatise on the Beautiful (Ennead I, vi )

‘Try to raise the divine in yourself to the divine in all…..’

This blog on Plotinus is based on the online ‘meet up’ talk I gave in June 2020. It will appeal to anyone wanting to dig a bit deeper into Plato’s theory of forms – and his World of Perfect Ideas or Forms. In particular we will be looking at the Perfect Idea of Form of Beauty, which while including beautiful looks – also includes beautiful views, beautiful personalities, beautiful composition, and indeed ‘Beauty’ in the widest sense of the word.

It may sound as if this blog post is only about abstract and vague intellectual ideas (‘The Beautiful’ in this case……); and while it is about this in part - it is also going deeper - perhaps much deeper - into how Plato thought that we could live more  ‘ethically’ or ‘correctly and better’ - and indeed more ‘beautifully’ ourselves in the real world. In order to do this Plato believes that we need first to have some understanding of what the Idea of Beauty and the Beautiful really is in essence…..

Keep in mind also, that while we are largely discussing how we could live better ‘personally’, Plato and Plotinus’s views also apply to us as groups and communities of people (e.g. cities and countries); and about how our leaders make decisions on our behalf.

It is a fundamental principle of Platonic ethics and living 'the good life' that you have to try and improve yourself; and then after that try to improve the things and people around you in a practical way. ‘Real Greek philosophy’ is to a greater extent a ‘practical’ subject and only in part an intellectual pursuit, and often only then as a preliminary activity to action. If this is the case, then we need to look deeper at the link between the theoretical metaphysics of Plato– and his practical ethics of how to live our lives in the best possible way.

Remember metaphysics’ is simply the big stuff that is hard to prove – or disprove - with our usual science. Metaphysics is literally ‘above’ our known scientific principles.  Plato believed that there was another world all around us that we cannot usually see with our eyes, but it is actually there; and that in some ways this is the real world - in the sense of it being more important than the world of the senses that we see all around us and that we interact with using our human bodily senses.

The other ‘invisible’ world, to put it simply, we can only interact with and ‘see’ by using our mind and intellects - and in this world Ideas can actually exist on their own without any material examples of them. To ‘see’ in this this other world we are advised to close our eyes – and use our intellect to see and appreciate things. For example, we are all sitting on chairs which were ideas before they became material chairs, and perhaps you will be drinking a wine or a beer (or maybe two) later tonight which were also ideas before they came into being. While we can all appreciate these ‘visual’ and ‘ordinary’ material examples of ideas becoming “things and stuff” this is only half the story. Plato believed in a separate world of 'Perfect Ideas', which he calls ‘The Forms’ (hence Plato’s Theory of the Forms) where the basic or first idea (let’s call it a template idea) for everything exists in a perfect way

Now although chairs etc are very useful things, and easy visual examples to discuss, this Theory of the Forms also applies to other less visible or tangible concepts such as justice, courage, moderation and importantly for tonight’s talk ‘Beauty’ in this other unseen world, and here in our world, the sensible world of the bodily senses, we only see or witness ‘particular’ examples of these things.

I am not saying I agree or disagree – I am just giving a little background on deeper Platonic thought and his metaphysics. Now it is thought that Plato changed his views on this as he went through life - so it’s not a dogma he is suggesting - but something we should consider and contemplate as we try to get a fix on how the reality we live in really is - and decide how we are going to live our lives in the best possible way within that reality.

Plato also suggests that the universe and everything in it has been created or has flowed out of the one source or fountain of everything, which is beyond all description, and which he calls ‘the One’ and/or ‘the Good’. (A kind of divine fountain or source of everything…..)

According to the writings of Plato “the One” and the Good and very closely aligned – and almost different aspects of the same thing. Therefore, if we could get closer to and understand better ‘the Good’, then we would get closer to ‘The One” – the divine source.  Remember these things are ‘invisible’ Ideas – only knowable with our intellects – and not our usual senses – such as sight or sound.

In Platonic thinking the ‘contemplation and investigation’ of what the truly good and beautiful way to live is (and what the correct specific action to take in a given situation in the real world is) - is a pre requisite and first step in us choosing to live that way. Simply put, if we always act quickly and impulsively, we might do the right thing; but usually it’s better to consider what the right thing to do is before we take any action….both as individuals or leaders of a city or group.

In other words, we are looking at the idea of ‘Beauty’ in its essence (or Platonic form) - tonight to see if Plotinus suggests how we should live our life. We could of course have decided to look at other important Ideas such as Goodness, Courage and Fortitude, Moderation, Wisdom, Justice.

Socrates clearly believes in the actual existence of these perfect Ideas or Forms – and the Idea of Perfect beauty in the ‘Platonic’ sense of the word. He says that (Plato-Phaedo-100d/e):

‘….. nothing makes a thing beautiful but the presence and participation of Beauty in whatever way or manner obtained; for as to the manner I am uncertain, but I stoutly contend that by Beauty all beautiful things become beautiful. This appears to me to be the safest answer which I can give, either to myself or to another, and to this I cling, in the persuasion that this principle will never be overthrown, and that to myself or to anyone who asks the question, I may safely reply, that by Beauty beautiful things become beautiful’.

He then applies this notion to other eternal Ideas such as Greatness. According to Socrates nothing becomes great without participating in the idea of Greatness. He also says that there is no way anything comes into existence except by participation with its own proper essence or Form.

He also says that something cannot partake of two opposite perfect Ideas at the same time – for example hot and cold. A bowel of soup cannot be hot and cold at the same time – it can only move from one state of being to the other in stages….. It is a gradual process……

Let me just add a quick storey here that I call ‘The Piano Player’ which kind of fits in here – about moving from one state of being to another. Imagine a friend introduces me to someone who is an experienced concert pianist who sometimes offers instruction to other pianists. Imagine also that I have been planning to learn the piano at some point in my life, and although I have never bought a piano played one I did buy a book ‘piano for dummies’ last week albeit I haven’t read it yet. If I then say to this concert pianist that I would be grateful if he could give me a lesson it makes me seem ridiculous to people; since this pianist has so many insights to offer experienced pianists that are trying to improve.

….. And in general, learning or understanding better anything - gets better or more productive the more you know about something in the first place. A good guitarist could really learn something from Eric Clapton; a good artist could similarly learn from Leonardo da Vinci. A good sculptor from Michelangelo. The person who hasn’t made any effort at the guitar, painting or sculpture wouldn’t learn as much and might not even understand some of the things the expert is explaining. This principle applies even more for someone wanting to follow the philosophical path -or simply to try and live a little bit better. A bad selfish and greedy man does not go to bed one evening and wake up as a good man in the morning…. It also follows that the better and more ‘beautiful’ a person you are - the closer and easier it will be to understand the perfect ideas of The One, The Good and The Beautiful…..  You simply cannot recognise and know something – if you have no idea about that thing….. For example again, only a dedicated and trained mathematician can appreciate fully some high powered mathematical concepts ….

There is another problem – even for dedicated and experienced philosophers trying to following the right path. Contemplating the Good and The One is very difficult for everyone– and much harder than contemplating some of the other template Ideas or Forms….. 

Plato suggests that The Beautiful is the visible expression of the Good……..   and we can more easily see and understand examples of beautiful things around us (beautiful people – on the inside and out – beautiful sunsets and views ….. beautiful actions and behaviours - and we can listen to beautiful music etc……. So “if” we can get to understand a little better what the Beautiful actually is…… it helps us to understand what The Good is – and this in turn helps to give us some idea of what ‘The One’ is…..  since they are closely related….. Plato suggests that understanding ‘the Beautiful’ could be a stepping stone towards understanding the good. This blog is only trying to present an ‘overview’ of these things…..

This idea of steadily moving and working towards where you want to be with something being important in many fields of endeavour…… (like the piano player I just mentioned) .. includes if you are trying to be a good or ‘beautiful’ person - (again in its broadest sense) person. In Platonic thinking - the better and more beautiful a person you are - the easier it will be to understand and better the perfect ideas of The Beautiful, The Good, and who knows…. even The One

[Side Note:  someone trying to pick a beautiful diamond out of the bag of fake diamonds will find it very hard to do if he or she does not really know what a real diamond looks like. Choosing the real diamond will be guesswork at best; and might at worse be related to our physical senses and desires. E.g. someone might simply choose the biggest and shiniest looking diamond in the bag.]

So let’s discuss now what Plotinus has to say about this other worldly idea of ‘The Beautiful and the Good’ to see if it can help us get our own fix on these things – or at least help guide us with our own contemplation or search for the Beautiful… and the Good ….. and I suppose if we are very fortunate The One or the divine source of everything….

Short Biography of Plotinus

Plotinus was born in 204/205 C.E. apx in Egypt, the exact location of which is unknown. In his mid-twenties we do know he gravitated to Alexandria, where he attended the lectures of various philosophers, not finding satisfaction with any until he discovered the teacher Ammonius Saccas. He remained with Ammonius until 242 (ie about 20 years), at which time he joined up with the Emperor Gordian on an expedition to Persia, for the purpose, it seems, of engaging the famed philosophers of that country in the pursuit of wisdom. The expedition never met its destination, for Gordian was assassinated on the way in Mesopotamia, and Plotinus returned to Rome to set up his own philosophy school. (He was about 40 at this time) He taught philosophy in Rome for twenty years before the arrival of a special student to his school called Porphyry, who was destined to become his most famous pupil, as well as his biographer and the editor of his various writings…..

It was at this time, encouraged by Porphyry, that Plotinus (in his 60’s) began to collect his lecture notes / treatise and essays into any systematic form, and to compose new ones. His writings on various subjects are collectively known as The Enneads – and we are going to look at one of them this evening. (Although Plotinus regarded Plato as the ultimate authority on all things philosophical, he was known to have disagreed with him on occasions. After all – he was a great thinker and philosopher in his own right……   eg  Ennead IV.8.1 )

Plotinus is regarded by many as the father of the Neo Platonists and Neoplatonic movement -  since he was a great admirer of Plato, and refers to him along with many other philosophers in his writings; and indeed makes engaging references to Plato’s writings – using similar symbols and metaphors…...

Without going too far into this for this blog – suffice to say we should be cautious of thinking that all the Neo Platonists were the same and had similar views. This just isn’t the case since they covered a period of some 350 years – from say the founding of Plotinus’ school in Rome to the closing of all the philosophy schools in Athens around 520 CE. For example, some 200 years after Plotinus there was a another group of philosophers in Athens who are also regarded as Neo Platonists by many as they offer many commentaries and explanations of Plato. However, in my view, some of these ‘latter’ Neo Platonists of Athens (rather than the earlier Neo Platonists like Plotinus and Porphyry of the 3^rd century CE based in Rome) seem to be given much more dogmatically and prescriptively than those of the original philosophers Socrates and Plato who they claim to be explaining. It is an interesting subject for another talk maybe - but for the moment just be cautious of thinking that all the Neoplatonists were the same and shared the same ideas and views.

A final biographical point on Plotinus is that we should not make the mistake of regarding Plotinus as nothing more than a commentator on Plato, albeit a brilliant, entertaining and very understandable one. He was an original and profound thinker in his own right who wrote his own philosophical ideas as well. It is true that he borrowed and re-worked many things that he found useful from earlier thinkers such as Plato, and even from his opponents, in order to construct his essays and treatises. This great thinker and writer Plotinus died in solitude at Campania Italy in 270 C.E.

Let us now look at one of Plotinus’ pieces or Enneads that is Ennead I, part vi   which is sometimes known as his Treatise on The Beautiful. The piece itself is only 10 to 12 pages long - but it is a bit long for a blog post discussion. I have therefore chosen 3 extracts to give you a good flavour of what’s going on. (Refer to a previous post on this blog on 15th May 2020 for the "Text Extracts". Alternatively, the full piece to read if you wish is available at:  

http://jameslongerstuff.blogspot.com/2020/04/plotinus-on-beauty-ennead-i-vi-trans.html)

(Extract A) Plotinus tries to describe Beauty and define it

Notice:

-         We are talking about Beauty in its very widest sense…

-         The connection and similarities between the ‘idea’ of Beauty in the divine world, and this other visible world of the senses. (This crops up with The Cave and The Phaedrus. In the Phaedrus the lover sees a beautiful face in this world - but is reminded of the divine Beauty he once saw when his soul - not attached to his earthly body - followed a God to the outer heavens. You will see that Plotinus in his various writings often includes and refers very directly to some Platonic passages, themes and myths.

(Extract B) – The Importance of Virtue and Living Correctly

Notice:

-         Beautiful ways of life….

-          Being in control of ‘lusts’. (… Although Plato never suggests that being in love with someone - of physical intimacy is a bad thing at the appropriate time. This is different to someone who is a slave to their desires whether that be drink, sex, money or whatever. None of these things are necessarily bad providing we are in control and act appropriately with some moderation – according to Plato at least.

-           

(Extract C – Parts 1 and 2) Acting and living ‘beautifully’ (i.e How to Make Ourselves More Beautiful a both from a theoretical and practical point of view……) Pt 1 = ‘Theoretically’ and Pt 2 = ‘Practically’

Notice:

-         To actually “see” the perfect Beauty is the challenge

-         How to find it or see it. (We must shut our eyes to see…)

-         Not visible to the profane – (ties in with my piano player storey and being able to see the true diamond in the bag.) We will not see the Beautiful if we do not have ‘some idea’ what it is we are looking for…..

-         Finding our way

-         Looking after and finishing our own personal ‘statues’

-         Plotinus suggests that our goal should not simply be to live like a good person - but to live perfectly and beautifully like a God?

Some closing remarks if I may…..

So that’s a flavour of what Plotinus writes about Beauty. He tries to define what beauty actually is (which is a good place to start any philosophical discussion or contemplation) - and comes to a working definition at least that will do for his own purposes…… He then talks about the process of improving ourselves by living in virtue and living ‘correctly’ however we define this – again for our own purposes.   This is just the path or part of the process in achieving or seeing real Beauty in ourselves which is necessary if we are to be able to recognise divine Beauty at all. If you remember, I talked about only good piano players being able to learn from a great piano player – and not the beginners. There is a need for time and effort from us in the early stages.

Then later on in Plotinus’ essay he talks about us actually seeing ‘the Good and the Beautiful’ (there are echoes of Plato’s Phaedrus here which talks about the ascent of the soul represented by a chariot with 2 horses; and of Plat’s myth of the Cave);  and us not just ‘aspiring’ to be that way (like a God) but to actually live in a godlike way ourselves. Platonic philosophy is not just about reading books, discussing and observing – its about actually LIVING that way……. 

However, if we want to live in a good and beautiful way – FIRST we have to explore what these ideas actually mean in their purest sense – and then only secondly focus our attentions on trying to achieve them…… since ‘trying’ is an important part of Plato’s ethical living.

Plotinus uses the attractive and very understandable metaphor of a sculptor trying to make his statue as good as he possibly can by making small improvements here and there towards the end…… And he suggests that we should look at ourselves in the same way as we go through life - and make small improvements regularly to ourselves where we can….

In many of the talks I have given previously I have tried to strip away the extra details of Platonic philosophy so the we can grasp the essential ideas underneath. (A bit like unwrapping a Christmas present that has been over wrapped with too much string, tape and layers of paper…..) 

However, tonight we have gone the other way – and looked a bit deeper into the details of why Plato’s essential Ideas or Theory of Forms (and his metaphysics) are important to consider and understand a little…… as it helps us get a grasp at a true  understanding of the things around us…. or that we could have around us….. In part, it offers us another layer of reasoning and motivation to live in a certain way….. when on the face of it, carrying on as we are in some matters is more appealing to our down to earth senses and primal desires……

I hope you have enjoyed this small taste of Plotinus - and begin to see the importance of Plato’s Forms - and this world of ideas a little clearer…… We don’t have to agree with everything Plato, Socrates – or Plotinus says - but they can give us important signposts to follow as we make our own search for the Beautiful, the Good, and then who knows - even the One or the Divine itself… […. Since these things remember, according to Plato, are all closely related….]

I leave you with the final words of Plotinus who on his deathbed said to his friends and students gathered there:

‘Try to raise the divine in yourself to the divine in all…..’