Reading: Plato's Theory of Knowledge

I guess you can see now why very few professors ever tried to introduce philosophy to students by using Plato. It's not the easiest stuff; it's some of the most difficult. It's interesting, but it doesn't make for good interest.

I think we're ready now to go on to the problem of knowledge as raised by Plato. We've looked at his theory of reality and seen some of the implications it has, as well as some of the criticisms that have been made of it, including those by Plato himself and others. The problem of knowledge, for Plato, concerns the relation between sensation and reason. Since he's divided the human being into a rational soul and a body that senses and perceives, this delineation dictates how he perceives the problem.

This discussion occurs in the dialogue called "Theaetetus." It's a famous one in which Plato agonizes over when, and under what circumstances, we are entitled to be certain of a belief. How do we differentiate between mere opinion and certainty? When do we transition from one to the other? In "Theaetetus," Plato asserts that sensation alone isn't knowledge. Sensation becomes knowledge once combined with reason.

What concerns him, and what causes apprehension, are phenomena such as the way objects appear smaller the further away they are, or the way railroad tracks seem to converge at the horizon, or how a stick appears bent when submerged in water. The argument posits that if something appears bent (like the stick), what truly is bent? The real stick feels straight when touched, but visually, it appears distorted. So, can our sensations truly reflect the real objects? How do we discern when these sensations give accurate information about objects, and when they're only deceptive appearances?

This issue troubled Plato deeply. Through an extensive dialogue, he ultimately concludes that we are entitled to be certain of a belief if it's either self-evident or proven. From the moment he arrived at this conclusion, the debate over what constitutes "proven" has persisted. Conversely, there has been less contention over "self-evidence," largely due to Aristotle, Plato's successor and student.

Aristotle studied with Plato for 20 years at Plato's Academy before establishing his own school, the Lyceum. While Aristotle drew inspiration from Plato, he also sought to rectify some of Plato's theories. When addressing the notion of self-evidence, Aristotle imposed stricter criteria. He believed that for an observation to be genuinely self-evident, it must be universally recognized as true and also represent a necessary truth, akin to a law. Thus, simple observations, like spotting a tree, don't qualify. Such observations could be deceptive, like mistaking a hologram for reality or misconstruing a dream as truth.

So, Aristotle believes that self-evidence counts when it's universally accepted. When it's a law, it's a necessary truth. If everyone recognizes it and it's a necessary truth, then it provides infallible knowledge. That's Aristotle's perspective. Plato doesn't go as deep into this concept. He concludes that sensation, when combined with reason's judgments, can become knowledge. By itself, sensation isn’t sufficient. That's my interpretation of Plato, though some might disagree. Still, I'm convinced this is an accurate understanding.

In connection with this, I'd like to discuss the concept of knowledge, particularly in relation to ethics. As you might recall, Socrates was deeply concerned with discerning what is good and living in alignment with that knowledge. He pursued this quest until his very end, including the moment of his execution.

Plato introduces an additional challenge in the "Euthyphro" dialogue: "Do the Gods love what is good because it is inherently good? Or is something considered good simply because the Gods love it?" What Plato is exploring here is whether there exists an absolute standard for goodness. He argues that stating something is good merely because the Gods love it doesn't provide any inherent value or virtue to the thing itself. This conundrum has perplexed many Christian thinkers. They ponder, "Does God forbid murder because it's inherently wrong, or is it wrong solely because God says so?" They see this as a dilemma, which, in my view, is unnecessary.

The crux of the matter seems to revolve around whether there's a moral standard independent of God or if moral standards are purely God's edicts. This could imply that God hasn't established standards of good and evil or that they are arbitrary. But the doctrine of creation, as presented in the Scriptures, offers a solution. It posits that God, in His act of creation, embedded certain moral truths in the world. Murder isn't forbidden because the command makes it wrong; it's forbidden because it's inherently wrong in the world God created. The same applies to other moral imperatives like lying, stealing, and coveting. These commands are revelations of the inherent moral fabric of creation. Thus, the dilemma is dissolved: God's commands reveal the moral truths of the world He created. They're neither arbitrary nor independent of Him.

Moving forward with Plato's philosophy, we approach his doctrine of human nature. He posits that humans possess a rational soul residing within a physical body. The body, with its emotions, often conflicts with the rational soul's directives. I disagree with Plato's extreme stance on this, as I don't believe it aligns with the Christian perspective. Notably, Plato is perhaps the only philosopher to describe the body as the "prison house of the soul," suggesting we'd be better off without our physical forms. Such a view starkly contrasts with the beliefs of Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions.

These theistic traditions propose a holistic human comprised of body and soul, both essential and harmonious. Contrary to Plato's view that the body is restrictive, these traditions celebrate the resurrection of the body, a profound promise of eternal life beyond mere existence as souls. Plato transitions from this individual-focused doctrine to societal considerations. He envisions a society, or polis in Greek, where humans can thrive and engage in cultural exchanges, ensuring the preservation and growth of their culture across generations.

"How should that be organized?" he ponders. He recognizes that the policy is formulated primarily out of concern for justice. In order to ensure justice is maintained, the polis will have laws, courts, trials, and hearings where justice can be administered. He asserts that a just state maintains a balance between various goods that must be preserved and promoted. He likens the state to what is good for an individual; what benefits a person, benefits the state, and for the same reasons. A human, he suggests, is a micro-state, while a state is a human on a larger scale.

Firstly, there needs to be a balance between various goods, with a significant emphasis on justice. He argues in one of the most renowned works on politics ever written, "The Republic," that the most effective way to ensure reason governs a republic is by having philosophers as rulers. These individuals, acquainted with the forms and the realm of forms, understand what's best and are therefore the most qualified to draft laws to bring the state closer to the ideal prescribed by these forms.

To clarify, the term "republic" originates from the Latin "res publica," meaning a public thing. A republic is not merely a type of government but signifies that the state involves everyone, whether as a citizen, officer, soldier, or producer. Historically, many ancient kingdoms were not 'public things'. For instance, in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh essentially owned the nation and its people, treating it as his private property, and the government wasn't concerned with public well-being. In contrast, Plato envisions the city-state as a republic, or polis, and proceeds to describe how to construct an exemplary one.

According to Plato, there are different classes of people, and among these, the rulers will be the philosophers, referred to as the guardians of the city. This concept is revolutionary, deviating from the prevailing notion where the ruling class was determined by birthright. Instead, one becomes a guardian by exhibiting exceptional intellect and understanding of the forms, irrespective of their birth status or gender. In order to establish and maintain this structure, Plato proposes a "noble lie". This lie suggests that people are born from different materials: iron, bronze, silver, or gold, which determines their roles in society. The idea is to make individuals content with their assigned roles since they are most happy and efficient when performing tasks they are inherently suited for.

However, this vision has its complexities. It necessitates a state that is totalitarian, overseeing every aspect of its citizens' lives, including childhood upbringing, education, and occupational assignments. The entirety of one's life would be regulated, and as Karl Popper highlights in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies", Plato's state would essentially stifle freedom.

Furthermore, Plato's concept of communal marriage, with state-raised children and state-regulated religion and literature, is likely to ruffle feathers. He believes that education should commence with literature and stories, but is wary of the tales spun by poets like Hesiod and Homer that portray gods in questionable lights. He argues for a censorship of these stories, emphasizing that only tales portraying gods as authors of good things should be permitted. This rigorous regulation extends to every aspect of society, with the overarching principle that God and things of God are perfect and unchangeable.

Well, that sounds right. So the true lie is hated not only by the gods but also by humans. Yes. And whereas the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful, in dealing with enemies for example, we cannot allow the gods to be misrepresented by any madness or illusion, as in the tales of mythology that we were just now speaking of.

Very true, he said. So, can any of these reasons apply to God? Can we suppose he's ignorant of the past and therefore he invents some deception? "That would be ridiculous," he said. Then, the lying poet has no place in our idea of God. "I should say not." Or is God going to tell a lie because he's afraid of enemies? "Oh, that's inconceivable." He may have friends who are senseless or mad? "No, no, of course not." Then is God perfectly simple and true, both in word and deed? He changes not; he deceives not either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision. "Your thoughts reflect my own," he said. So, you agree with me then, I said, that this is the second type of form we should write about divine things. "And I grant you're right."

Here's the very end of the Republic, as Plato reaches his conclusions about the ideal city-state. All the souls have now chosen their lives and they went in order of their choice to Lachesis to see with them the genius of their several choices. Thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished. And this account will save us if we are obedient to the spoken word. We shall safely pass over the river of forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled when we die. Wherefore my counsel is that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and evil. Thus, we will live dear to one another and to the gods while remaining here. And when, like our conquerors in the games who go around to gather gifts, we receive a reward, it will be well with us, both in this life and the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we've been describing.

The purpose of the city-state is to produce virtue in its citizens. They are encouraged to practice virtue. They are encouraged to make their contribution to the state in accordance to their own abilities: the producers, the soldiers, the guardians who make the laws. Then all will be well. We will die, passing over the river of forgetfulness to our eternal reward, with the virtues we experienced enhanced, and receive our reward. It's easy to be impressed by that. So, impressive writing is not identical with Christianity by any means. Death is not a river of forgetfulness. And there are many of us who think that the Christian religion, taken seriously, militates against having a totalitarian state. We are not encouraged to have the state dictate people's religion, whom they marry, what work they do. That is all proposed on the assumption that people are parts of the state. By this, we mean the government, the political institution, the institution that makes and enforces laws. That's what he means by state.

He posits that people are parts of the state and, therefore, they must contribute to the general welfare of the whole state. It is the welfare of the state that becomes paramount, more than the individual. Just as a doctor may have to sacrifice a limb or finger to save the whole body, individuals may have to be sacrificed to save the entire state. The state is the primary reality. People exist as parts of it. And that's why Plato held that people could only be fully human, truly human, in a state interacting with other human beings. Only there is culture and language practiced and culture produced that is worthy of the name. So, he sees people as parts of the state.

The Christian view is not that people are parts of the state. They are not. There isn't merely a relation of part to whole in reality, but there is also the relation of sub-wholes to whole. A part depends on the whole to exist, but some wholes don't. So, human beings could be smaller wholes within the greater whole rather than being parts of a whole that depend on the whole and must be sacrificed for the good of the whole. This is an important point that's going to come up later. I'm going to explain in greater detail when, in connection with Aristotle's theory.

Aristotle is going to correct some of these extremes that Plato proposes. Aristotle is going to say Plato has too much unity in the state. He has all the wives in common, all the children in common. People are assigned what they're to do in life, and so on, with the state regulating everything. It's totalitarian. Aristotle wants to see it a bit looser, where each man has his own wife, each wife has her own husband, and each couple has their own children. And he has a famous criticism of Plato: having no property. Remember the Guardians own no property and people only have what they're assigned, with property owned by the whole thing. Aristotle's comment about that is, "What is owned by everybody is cared for by nobody." A wise observation, yet Aristotle's idea is still unChristian in many respects. So, we'll cover that as well. Here, we see the totalitarian state in Plato, governing the totality of life. It dictates your education, your recreation, your vocation, your religion, and does away with the family. Not a Christian view at all in other respects.

Next time, we'll take up his final attempt at the ideal society in his dialogue called the "Laws". It was, as far as we know, his last dialogue. And Plato has taken back a lot of his opinions that he put forward in the Republic. He's going to change a lot of his own ideas. There, he wants to see not the rule of the philosopher king as dictators. But instead, he wants to see the rule of law. We get a body of laws that try to create public justice. Then, we have officials administer the laws. The laws should be supreme.