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…..’

On the nature of Good and Evil - 01

Good and Evil – What is it?

       In the Phaedo, after Socrates has his chains removed, he says that he feels a pleasure from his legs where the chains had been just a short while before. He suggests that pain and pleasure may be part of the same thing - and perhaps joined together in some way with a common head. In other words, he suggests that these two opposites are connected in some way.  Indeed, in the Socratic thought, the connection of various opposites is a common thought - i.e. something can only become hot if it was cooler before; the fast running race horse must have been running slowly to begin with before it was running fast. We can think of many more smaller ‘particular’ examples of this connection of opposites by a common root or thread.

       However, also in the Phaedo, when Socrates gives his first ‘proof’ of why he thinks that the soul exists (from his five proofs) he talks about the proof of ‘generation of opposites’ and that life is generated from death, and vice versa. As a proof that the soul exists, I do not find this convincing, and my reasons are not important for the purposes of this short article on good and evil. Nevertheless, it does suggest another level of ‘opposites’ being connected in some way.

        So, when trying to decide what good and evil are and where they come from - one avenue of exploration and personal investigation is to consider whether good and evil are connected in some way.

       Secondly, we can consider whether good and evil are external forces acting in the world around us – or even throughout the universe. Are good and evil simply just human qualities – since we all seem to have the possibility of good and evil actions within us - but hopefully choose ‘good’ (or at least ‘relatively good’) actions over evil ones. 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. However, 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 be arrested and put on trial for murder.

       I would suggest that good and evil may simply be predominantly human qualities, since when the lioness kills the antelope to feed her Cubs - it is not considered an act of evil; but a man killing his neighbours for no apparent reason would probably be considered so by many. Similarly, when an earthquake kills 200 people we do not consider it as an act of evil. However, when the religious fanatic blows up a passenger aeroplane, or leaves a bomb in a bar full of young people enjoying a drink or a concert, then we do regard the killing of the 200 people as an act of evil. As in most philosophical thought, the practical details appear important; or are good and evil ‘absolutes’ of ‘perfect ideas’ and therefore never changing?

       Now in traditional platonic thought (or at least as suggested by the later commentator Proclus some 800 years after Plato) evil as such does not exist; since the whole universe in his view flows out of the one source of everything; and that one source is always good. In this view, evil does not exist - only a lack or even complete absence of the ‘the good’.  In regard to our human concept of evil and evil actions by some people; this idea suggests that evil actions are simply a lack of ‘good judgement’ or the inability to make a ‘good’ rational choice. For example, an otherwise good man might kill another man in a moment of anger - and thus have committed an evil act as a lack of good judgement; and he would no doubt regret his action the following day. Similarly, but somewhat differently, the madman who kills his neighbour over a minor matter would be lacking the healthy and good mind in order to make a good rational choice. Even if he  did not regret his action the next day if in a confused and unstable mental state, in many ways it would be hard to define his actions as a result of some ‘evil power’ operating within the universe, or at least within anthropomorphic part of it. The man was simply unwell and lacking a good healthy mind to make a reasonable action.

       Most organised religions with influence in our modern day 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.

       The above few short paragraphs offer no clear answers – but simply allow us to start our investigation of evil. Socrates advises us in many of his conversations with people, that 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 or irrational actions.

       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.

Bite Size Comments on ‘Parmenides’ by Plato

Using Translation by H. N. Fowler / Heinemann

(Note: Delightful short 2 -3 page introductions by Fowler)

In my opinion it is the first 15 pages or so of this 35 page dialogue that are by far the most interesting. For me the latter pages are rather hard work to read and frankly become rather tedious. Of course, I accept that this view may not be shared by some readers of this text and I will come to back to this point again below.

The dialogue begins with Plato describing how Cephalus relates a storey that was told to him by Antiphon; who heard it from Pythodorus– who was present as a listener when Parmenides (the great Eleatic philosopher) conversed with a young Socrates (apx 20 years old we suppose) and other listeners. It is therefore dramatised by Plato as a 4^th or 5^thhand account of the original tale - and this is emphasised for some reason –and perhaps for important or understandable reasons? This dialogue is therefore a good illustration of how the Socratic-Platonic philosophic tradition was kept alive by an oral rather than purely written tradition.

Plato starts his dialogue as usual by giving the dramatic setting, and with Socrates refuting some of Zeno’s paradoxes (who is also present at the discussion) which he claims not to be paradoxes at all. Parmenides has said “the one [divine] exists” and gives a number of proofs – and Zeno has said that “the many does not exist”. According to Socrates, Zeno has taken the same view as Parmenides and merely expressed it the other way around and so his ideas are nothing new and not a paradox.

Parmenides congratulates young Socrates on his observations and then the experienced and respected philosopher advises him on how to develop his philosophical skills – and recommends certain practical “training”methods. Firstly he sensibly suggests (paragraph starting line 136a) that:

     ‘…if you wish to get better training (in philosophy and knowledge), you must do something more …. you must consider not only what happens if a particular hypothesis is true; but also what happens if it is not true.’

Parmenides then explains in more detail what he mean by this – and the various angles from which we should discuss a topic from. Socrates exclaims that this is a “stupendous amount of work” he is suggesting; but is it I wonder? Or is it just an hour or two today and another hour or two tomorrow and for a few days thereafter to examine any hypothesis in some detail and from all the various angles? Indeed, if we wish to suggest a hypothesis on anything serious, important or worthwhile ourselves, should we not – as trainee or “real” philosophers – be examining the implications of what we are saying from all angles as a pre-requisite. Would it not be better to say that we do not have an opinion on something if we have not carried out this work which Parmenides suggests is essential first?

Socrates then asks Parmenides to take a hypothesis of his own choice as an example and then discuss it from various angles to demonstrate what he means by this suggested method; to which Parmenides says: ‘….. this is a great task…. to impose on a man my age…. ‘. At line 136 E, Pythodorus tells Socrates:

      ‘If there were more of us, it would not be fair to ask it of him, for it is not suitable for him to speak on such subjects before many, especially at his age; for the many do not know for except by this devious passage through all things the mind cannot attain the truth.’

Parmenides agrees to Socrates’ request and suggests for an example hypothesis the supposition: ‘that the one exists…. or that it does not exist.’

[Suggestion for facilitators and group leaders – if you are studying this text with students – I think this is a good point to stop and first get the students to discuss the hypothesis themselves for an hour at least before reading further and seeing how Parmenides himself goes about it. You may even wish to leave the students to think about the above supposition for themselves for the rest of the morning/day…. and then perhaps make their own short presentations – before reading further with the text.]

At line 142.B Parmenides says:

     ‘Shall we then return to our hypothesis and see if a review of our argument discloses any new point of view?’

He then proceeds to summarise and develop his previous arguments in just a page or two. All nice and succinct and clear you might be thinking but I do not feel this to be the case. For example, Parmenides asks Socrates:

      ‘In this way: If being is predicated of the one which exists and unity is predicated of being which is one , and being and one are not the same, but belong to the existent one of our hypothesis , must not the existent one be a whole of which the one and being are parts?’

To which Socrates replies (almost amusingly in my own view): ‘Inevitably…’ Is Socrates joking? It seems like a rather complicated and bewildering statement for Socrates to give such a reply that he thought the statement obvious or inevitable. Perhaps the truth is they have both left me behind in terms of intellect or in terms of interest by this asking questions this way and then that – and then back the other way again. And I wonder, in truth – which is the subject of our discussion here, are they any closer to proving or deciding or knowing whether the divine is “One “ or “many” at the end of it all?

There then follows a discussion on the existence of the one and of ‘being’ itself. At line 160.B (P.311 Fowler) Parmenides in keeping with the training method he has earlier suggested to Socrates asks:

     ‘Well, and ought we not next to consider what must happens if one does not exist?’

For expediency with this blog I will quote here two paragraphs from the Wikipedia website:

      'This difficult second part of the dialogue is generally agreed to be one of the most challenging, and sometimes bizarre, pieces in the whole of the Platonic corpus. It consists of an unrelenting series of difficult and subtle arguments, where the exchange is stripped of all but the bare essentials of the arguments involved. Gone are the drama and colour we are accustomed to from [Plato’s] earlier dialogues.

      The long, austere second half of the dialogue is organised as a series of eight (or alternatively, nine deductions about the relation of the one to the many. The reasoning is often, as are Parmenides' arguments in the first section of the work, obscure, and at times appears to be blatantly fallacious. Further, the deductions appear to be set up in a way to deliberately produce antinomies, or mutually contradictory conclusions…..’

Wikipedia then list the main points covered in the rest of the dialogue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_(dialogue).However, although perhaps convenient, this summary by Wikipedia may be an over simplification of the discussion in the second half of the dialogue. If you want to read a little deeper there is as usual a good longer essay on the Stanford University website at:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides 

“Bite Size” Summary:

As mentioned at the start of this blog while I enjoyed very much indeed the first 15 pages or so of this dialogue, I did find the latter pages rather hard going and dry: and as you must know by now I am usually a big fan of Plato’s writings on many fronts including the vivid myths, rich flowing language, humour and general readability. Below I give two opposing views on the dialogue by respected commentators: the first by H N Lamb who seems to sympathise with my own view (and that expressed above by Wikipedia) to some extent, and then secondly a quote from the 15^th Century Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino who feels that in this dialogue Plato:

      ‘…surpasses even himself - to bring forth this work miraculously from the adytum of the divine mind and from the innermost sanctum of philosophy.’

Firstly Lamb writes:

      ‘There can be no doubt that Plato’s contemporaries, living in the atmosphere of philosophical discussion which pervaded the Athens of those days; understood many of the allusions in the text which are lost on us, and were able to appreciate Plato’s point of view more fully than any modern scholar can hope to do, but even for them the result of this dialogue must have been chiefly, if not entirely negative. In greater or lesser degree the same is true of several other dialogues which appear to belong to nearly the same date. Such are the Theaetetus, the Cratylus, the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Philibus. These all seem to be more or less polemical, and in most of them the interest in method is evident. ’

However, Marsilio Ficino says:

     ‘While Plato sprinkled the seeds of all wisdom throughout all his dialogues, yet he collected the precepts of moral philosophy in the books on the Republic, the whole of science in the Timaeus, and he comprehended the whole of theology in the Parmenides. And whereas in the other works he rises far above all other philosophers, in this one he seems to surpass even himself and to bring forth this work miraculously from the adytum of the divine mind and from the innermost sanctum of philosophy. Whosoever undertakes the reading of this sacred book shall first prepare himself in a sober mind and detached spirit, before he makes bold to tackle the mysteries of this heavenly work. For here Plato discusses his own thoughts most subtly: how the One itself is the principle of all things, which is above all things and from which all things are, and in what manner it is outside everything and in everything, and how everything is from it, through it, and toward it.’ (Klibansky, 1941)

Certainly Parmenides is not one of Plato’s easier texts, and people will delight or otherwise by reading it. As with all things I recommend making your own minds up and taking a couple of hours at least to have a look at that first 15 pages I mentioned above which I found interesting and worthwhile.

James (London - Jan 2013)