Why read Plato?

Why should one read Plato at all?

To be honest, the question does haunt me. Progress does give us, I think, the idea that of our contemporary selves have advanced beyond all the accomplishments of our toga wearing ancestors. There is something intuitively troubling about the travelling backwards through history with the goal of acquiring sound and practical advice.  Unlike aged wine, ideas generally get progressively worse. I cite the phlogiston theory and Chicago school economics as prime examples of this phenomenon. And its not enough to simply state that people read Plato, therefore Plato is worth reading. People still read Ayn Rand.

What is it about Plato that makes him worth reading in this day in age? Plato's corpus is the first, attempt to communicate philosophical ideas in prose. Plato's work stands as an almost encyclopaedic collection of philosophical theories, innovations, insights and ideas of western culture ( while some ideas apply more or less universally).  Why would something like Plato's work be appealing to contemporary audiences?  Many people are philosophical, and make assumptions about the world. People can be said to make two kinds of assumptions, empirical and philosophical/abstract. Philosophical assumptions are assumptions made concerning the main branches of philosophy: metaphysics (questions about the structure of reality), epistemology (questions concerning the nature of knowledge), logic (the study of logical relations), axiology (the study of values i.e. ethics and aesthetics). Empirical statements are statements about states of affairs in the world.  Chances are, if you've made philosophical assumptions, they appear somewhere in the platonic corpus.

Plato's works feature many reoccurring philosophical themes. For example, in terms of ethics, the popular views of moral relativism, divine command theory, and egoism are featured and debated in his dialogues. He also features epistemological position like relativism and positivism, as well as metaphysical positions like nihilism, metaphysical dualism, material monism, and realism. This should not be taken as complete reduction of Plato at all. He is surely not only a plethora of common opinions, but also a well of new insights; Plato's dialectic ensures the analysis of many common ideas. Insofar as two opposing concepts are required to get’dialectic’ off the ground; there seems to be a built in design for plurality in views brought to the table. This allows for the introduction of ideas that were common throughout Athens and the Ancient Greek world, and remain in use to this day. These views were undoubtedly ones Plato experienced by virtue of his involvement in a bustling intellectual community.  The multiplicity of ideas goes hand in hand with his prose style, as Plato can communicate views through speakers

Is Plato relevant to contemporary philosophical problems? One of the biggest questions in philosophy is, believe it or not, whether philosophy makes any sense at all.  To this day philosophers attempt to justify philosophy as having some sort of epistemic privilege; it gives one special access to propositions that are distinguishable from ordinary propositions of common opinion.  Plato's dialogue the Gorgias features one of the key ways in which this problem manifests itself.  Is philosophy anything different than the art of rhetoric? When the philosopher feels he is providing justification for his claims, is he not using a euphemism for convince? One of Plato's major themes is his need to separate himself from sophists like Gorgias; something needs to give him the capacity to transcend the world of mere opinion.  Plato's own response to this problem, as well as the larger problem of objectivity, is captivating.  His theory of forms is essentially his attempt to make objectivity possible; one of the first of many attempts to provide such a basis. (Parmenides' illustration of the problem of securing objectivity will be discussed in future posts.)

Fortunately for everyone, Plato provides insights into questions other than the dry philosophical ones.  I like to think that ethics is something everyone can sink their teeth into.  I'm probably wrong, in fact I know I'm wrong, but the idealist in me seems to think that everyone has the capacity to sit down and have a nice talk about what they mean when they use terms like just, good, bad, etc..  Plato's Republic famously poses the question 'what is Justice', and features many common answers to that question.  Thrasymachus' view that 'might is right', featured in the opening pages of the text, provides a view still commonly held today. Even the common position of  'an eye for an eye', or as stated by Socrates 'evil for evil', is featured in the platonic dialogues.  In fact, one could argue that Socrates' rejection of this moral assumption in exchange for a principled individuality was a significant shift in western ethical thought; one has a duty to improve one's soul through humanism in a sense, as  opposed to the traditional Greek view that it is just to 'help friends and harm enemies'.  Why should one care about the ethical assumptions of our toothless ancestors? Because, whether one accepts it or not, these assumptions are generally the ones that humans possess. When faced with questions like 'should X get the death penalty', one tends to ask : 'well, did he/she deserve it?'. The assumption there is that justice contains within it a vindictive domain; a debtor/creditor scheme that justifies punishment. These assumptions lead to the way we manage ethical problems, and that is why careful analysis is required. We wouldn't want to off someone because we're careless.  Ethics demands rigour. 

While I have only spoken of Plato's ethical and epistemological relevance, it’s clear that, unlike those who merely judge books based on Rousseau's interpretation of them, the Republic is foremost a politically themed book. Questions like: 'should one censor information from the public', 'what is the ideal state', 'what is the ideal foreign policy', 'how should the state educate its citizens' are raised and debated throughout the work. These questions are still relevant today, as the state and its citizens try to make sense of the massive structure we have created around us, as well as figuring out just what it is we have to do with it. For instance, in regards to our modern day capitalist/oligarchic ideology, one could have read the Republic thousands of years ago and said 'told you so'. For, according to Plato, why should we expect the state to flourish, when the cobblers have become rulers? They will surely put their interests above the interests of everyone else, and therefore can never be considered the ideal governing body. For, Plato’s purpose in finding a ruler is to ensure the happiness of his fellow citizens, not filling up the state’s coffers at the expense of it.

I will finish this post with a patently pessimistic, but potentially optimistic thought. Unlike the history of science, which learns from its mistakes and perseveres, humanity tends to repeat its mistakes by virtue of its seemingly wilful ignorance. Plato's overall theme that knowledge is power, whether he held true to the tenant or not, is crucial if one considers progress, whether ethical or political, to be one of the main ends of humankind. When we go back to works like Plato, we are not simply learning about what some old dude believed.  We are first and foremost learning about ourselves and what we are capable of. For, if we are ignorant of our past, we are destined to repeat our most horrifying mistakes. What Plato did was lay the foundation for getting clearer about who we are, where we are, and what we have to do. We can continuously ask this of ourselves, but wise people have done this before us, and it would be foolish to think we have nothing to learn from them.

Information on the next post: The next post will be a comparative analysis of multiple articles on the topic of Socrates' condemnation to death. More specifically, I will pose the question: 'was Socrates guilty?’ Stay tuned.