Plato was a Greek philosopher and mathematician who left his mark in history. His classical philosophies on human nature reveal the basic truth as well as the flaws in the psychological evolution of mankind. Plato's allegory of the cave is a hypothetical scenario depicted by an enlightening conversation between Socrates and Plato's brother, Glaucon. The conversation basically deals with the ignorance of humanity trapped within the precincts of conventional ethics. As indicated by the term homo sapiens, they refer to the not-so sapient humans, but to the more civilized and cultivated form of animals. For spiritual evolution, an in-depth understanding of mother nature and the truth behind the things which cannot be seen, is also very important.

Description of the CaveWhile describing the story, Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine a cave inhabited by people. These men are prisoners, and their hands and legs are shackled by chains. Moreover, the movement of their face is also restricted, so that they can see nothing but the wall in front of them. This restricted movement limits their visibility to the wall, thus circumscribing the scope of any encounter beyond it. There is an enormous fire on the ground, and between the wall and the fire is a walkway meant for objects to pass. The shadows of these objects fall directly on the wall providing the sole view for the prisoners. Hence, the only way for the prisoners to get acquainted with their surroundings is to decipher the shadows and consider them to be a part of the real world. They start naming each and every object, and amongst all the prisoners, the intellect of an individual is governed by his ability to judge those objects.

According to Socrates, the idea of the world for prisoners is limited within the boundaries of the cave. The shadows are treated as real objects and there are pseudo intellectuals who claim to understand the world based on these shadows. The prisoners are not able to perceive the truth of nature because of their limited view.

Escape of a Prisoner from the CaveMoving on with the description, Socrates says that if somehow a prisoner manages to break the shackles and escapes from the cave, the world he gets to see outside goes beyond his comprehension. He, like all the prisoners, is accustomed to dim light, and the light of the sun makes him turn his gaze away from it. Slowly he gets accustomed to the existence of the new world, which delineates the fallacy of that inside the cave. On his intellectual journey, he discovers the true reality, the beauty of mother nature and an almost divine experience of the newly found mystical world.

Interpretation of Plato's Allegory of the CaveNow as the prisoner returns back to the cave, he feels his moral duty to make others aware of the truth he has just discovered. He tries to persuade his companions that outside there is a more real world, and what all has been seen by them are mere shadows of the real objects. He tries to point out the deep rooted ignorance of the fellow prisoners who are trapped within their own confinement of pseudo intellectualism. But the prisoners try to resist enlightenment and condemn him for the moral misconduct and loss of ethical values. These values, which are not governed by the tautologies of nature but the fallacy of shadows casted on the wall, are considered to be the truth by the prisoners of the cave. Everything that goes beyond these values, tends to lie in the domain of unconventional thoughts, which are always resisted by human beings. This cave metaphor can be replaced by a movie theater, where the screen serves as wall of the cave and the projector as the fire. In this case also, the objects seen are not real ones, but a reflection on the movie screen.

The creativity of Pluto, along with his deep understanding of human nature, makes him to create a scenario which shows the mankind a true picture of an imaginary world. We all may acquire and comprehend the world around us as our experience of physical objects, but it would be a mistake to limit ourselves to the conventional thoughts indentured by our stubbornness towards change.

The “Allegory of the Cave” by Plato represents an extended metaphor that is to contrast the

way in which we perceive and believe in what is reality. The thesis behind his allegory is the

basic

  tenets that all we perceive are imperfect “reflections” of the ultimate Forms, which subsequently represent truth and reality. In his story, Plato establishes a cave in which prisoners are chained down and forced to look upon the front wall of the cave. When summarizing the “Allegory of the Cave” it’s important to remember the two elements to the story; the fictional metaphor of the prisoners, and the philosophical tenets in which said story is supposed to represent, thus presenting us with the allegory itself.

The multi-faceted meanings that can be perceived from the “Cave” can be seen in the beginning with the presence of our prisoners whom are chained within the darkness of the aforementioned cave. The prisoners are bound to the floor and unable to turn their heads to see what goes on behind them. To the back of the prisoners, under the protection of the parapet, lie the puppeteers whom are casting the shadows on the wall in which the prisoners are perceiving reality. The passage is actually told not from the perspective of the prisoners, but rather a conversation occurring between Socrates and Glaucon (Plato’s brother). While the allegory itself isn’t the story, but rather the conversational dialogues between Glaucon and Socrates (Plato often spoke his ideas through Socrates in his works), the two are not mutually exclusive and thus will not be treated so.

As Socrates is describing the cave and the situation of the prisoners, he conveys the point that

the prisoners would be inherently mistaken as to what is reality. Because we as readers know

that the

 puppeteers behind them are using wooden and iron objects to liken the shadows to reality based items and people, the prisoners (unable to turn their heads) would know nothing else but the shadows, and perceive this as their own reality. This is an important development to the story because it shows us that what we perceive as real from birth is completely false based on our imperfect interpretations of reality and Goodness. The general point thus far of the allegory is that the general terms of our language are not "names" of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that are not visible to us, things that we can only grasp with the mind. This line of thinking is said to be described as “imagination,” by Plato. 

Once the prisoner is released, he is forced to look upon the fire and objects that once dictated his perception of reality, and he thus realizes these new images in front of him are now the accepted forms of reality. Plato describes the vision of the real truth to be “aching” to the eyes of the prisoners, and how they would naturally be inclined to going back and viewing what they have always seen as a pleasant and painless acceptance of truth. This stage of thinking is noted as “belief.” The comfort of the aforementioned perceived, and the fear of the unrecognized outside world would result in the prisoner being forced to climb the steep ascent of the cave and step outside into the bright sun.

Once the prisoner climbs out of the cave and is fully immersed in the sun’s rays, Socrates continues to explain the prisoner’s bewilderment, fear, and blindness to the objects he was now being told were real. The natural reaction of the prisoner would be to recognize shadows and reflections. After his eyes adjust to the sunlight, he begins to see items and people in their own

existence, outside of any medium. This recognizes the cognitive stage of though. When the prisoner looks up to the sky and looks into the Sun, and recognizes it as the cause of all that is around him—he has perceived the “Form of the Good!” This point in the passage marks the climax, as the prisoner, whom not long ago was blind to the “Form of the Good” (as well as the basic Forms in general), now is aware of reality and truth. When this has occurred, the ultimate stage of thought has been achieved, and that is “understanding.”

Plato (through the conversation of Socrates) then discusses the prisoner’s newfound awareness

of his own knowledge and understanding. He inquires, would the prisoner want to return to the

formerly accepted reality

  of truth, or would his content only lie in following his newly understood perception of reality? Both Glaucon and Socrates agree the prisoner would rather suffer any fate than returning to his previous life and understanding (or lack thereof!). 

Upon returning to the Cave, the prisoner would metaphorically (and literally) be entering a world of darkness yet again, and would be faced with the other unreleased prisoners. The other prisoners laugh at the released prisoner, and ridicule him for taking the useless ascent out of the cave in the first place. The others cannot understand something they have yet to experience, so it’s up to this prisoner to represent leadership, for it is him alone who is conscious of goodness. It’s at this point that Plato describes the philosopher kings who have recognized the Forms of Goodness as having a duty to be responsible leaders and to not feel contempt for those whom don’t share his enlightenment. 

The Allegory doesn’t solely represent our own misconceptions of reality, but also (in tune with the general thesis of his piece The Republic) Plato’s vision of what a solid leader should be. The prisoner is expected to return to the cave and live amongst his former prisoners as someone whom can see better than all the rest, someone whom is now able to govern from truth and goodness. He is expected to care for his fellow citizens, “…you have been better and more thoroughly educated than those others and hence you are more capable of playing your part both as men of thought and as men of action.” Upon realizing the Forms of Goodness, one assumes the responsibility of a qualified leader, and this presents the basis for Plato’s arguments for what constitutes just leadership and a just society. 

The “Allegory of the Cave” represents a complex model as to which we are to travel through our lives and understanding. The four stages of thought combined with the progress of human development represent our own path to complete awareness in which the most virtuous and distinguished will reach, and upon doing so shall lead the public. The story as told by Socrates and Glaucon presents a unique look at the way in which reality plays such an important part in our own existence, and how one understands it can be used as a qualification for leadership and government.

Plato

Book VII of  The Republic

The Allegory of the Cave

Here's a little story from Plato's most famous book, The Republic.  Socrates is talking to a young follower of his named Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what it's like to be a philosopher -- a lover of wisdom:  Most people, including ourselves, live in a world of relative ignorance.  We are even comfortable with that ignorance, because it is all we know.  When we first start facing truth, the process may be frightening, and many people run back to their old lives.  But if you continue to seek truth, you will eventually be able to handle it better.  In fact, you want more!  It's true that many people around you now may think you are weird or even a danger to society, but you don't care.  Once you've tasted the truth, you won't ever want to go back to being ignorant!

[Socrates is speaking with Glaucon]

[Socrates:]  And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

[Glaucon:]  I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply?

And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

Plato’s Idealism

Written: 1861;Translator: J. Karzer;Source: Russian Philosophy Volume II: The Nihilists, The Populists, Critics of Religion and Culture, Quadrangle Books 1965;Transcribed: Harrison Fluss, February 2008.

Plato is unquestionably entitled to our esteem as a powerful mind and a remarkable talent. The colossal mistakes this talent made in the sphere of abstract thought derived not from weakness of mind, shortness of sight, or timidity of thought, but from the predominance of the poetic element, from deliberate contempt of the testimony of experience, and from an overweening desire, common in powerful minds, to extract the truth from the depths of one’s own creative spirit instead of examining and studying it in particular phenomena.

Despite his mistakes and the complete untenability of his system, Plato may with all justice be called the father of idealism. Whether this was a signal service to humanity is, of course, a question that will be answered in different ways by representatives of different schools of abstract thought. But whatever the answer, nobody will deny Plato a place of honor in the history of science. Geniuses sometimes make felicitous mistakes that have a stimulating effect on the minds of whole generations. At first highly popular, later they are criticized; the popularity and the subsequent criticism together long serve as a school for mankind, as the ground of an intellectual struggle, as an occasion for the development of capacities, as a guiding and determining principle of historical trends and radical changes.

Plato, however, did not confine himself to the realm of pure thought, and he failed to realize that the true meaning of historical and political life cannot be understood while experience and individual phenomena are neglected. He tried to solve practical problems without even knowing how to pose them properly, so that his efforts in this direction are so feeble and groundless that they collapse completely at the lightest touch of criticism. His efforts show no rational love for mankind, no respect for the individual, no artistic proportion, no unity of purpose, no moral loftiness of ideal.

Imagine a fanciful but ugly edifice – one with arches, pediments, porticoes, belvederes, and colonnades, none of which has any practical purpose – and you will get an idea of the impression produced on the reader by Plato’s treatises, the Republic and the Laws. “The primary aim of the state,” Plato thinks, “is to make its citizens virtuous and ensure the material and moral welfare of all.” Recent investigators, as for instance Wilhelm Humboldt (Ideejt zu einem Versuch die Qrenzen der Wirksam-keit des Staats zu bestimmen),view the matter in a different light and define the state as a protective institution that safeguards the individual against abuse and attack by internal and external enemies. By this definition they release the adult citizen from the peculiar and unwanted guardianship imposed upon him throughout his life in Plato’s republic.

Apart from the erroneousness of the basic view, we find that the aim Plato pursued cannot even be achieved by the means and methods he suggested in his treatises. Virtue is required of the citizen, but Plato places the latter under humiliating restraints, against which moral and aesthetic feeling must rise up. The reader is faced with a dilemma: either the citizens, as self-respecting people, will not put up with this constraint, in which case

all of Plato’s institutions go by the board; or else they will submit to it and, systematically perverted by it, will lose the capacity to be virtuous. Virtue (even as Plato understands it) and the observance of the laws in his ideal state are two incompatible principles. Wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice are the four cardinal virtues in Plato’s moral philosophy. Which of these four virtues denies man the right of free criticism and results in absolute submission? If none of these virtues is fit for the dutiful citizens of the ideal state, then that means that Plato separates the ideal of man from the ideal of the citizen.

Many thinkers of antiquity, among them Aristotle in his Politics, say that virtue can be achieved only by the fully enfranchised citizens and does not exist for the slave, the artisan, or the woman. But Plato, who imposes unnatural and offensive restraints upon all the citizens of his state, goes much further. He gives society a structure which, by its very existence, makes it impossible not only to attain the ideal but even to strive towards it. Coming from a thinker who believes that there is no salvation apart from an ideal, such an arrangement must seem exceedingly peculiar. If a man’s ideal cannot be achieved even theoretically in civil society, the conclusion follows either that man must live and develop outside society, or else that the notorious ideal is a useless plaything of idle imagination. Neither of those conclusions would have pleased Plato, but both can be eliminated only by rejecting Utopian theory or revising the ideal. In Plato’s republic there are officials, warriors, artisans, tradesmen, slaves, and females – but there are no human beings, nor can there be any. Each individual is a cog, a pinion, or a wheel of a certain size and shape in the machine of state: aside from this official function he has no significance in any quarter: he is neither son, nor brother, nor husband, nor father, nor friend, nor lover. He is taken from his mother’s breast at birth and placed in a home for children; he is not shown to his parents for several years, and his origin is deliberately forgotten. He is brought up in the same way as other children of the same age, and as soon as he begins to remember things and to be aware of himself he feels that he is state property, linked to no one and to nothing in the world around him. When he grows up he is assigned a definite post; he becomes a warrior, and warlike exercises become his chief occupation and amusement. As a good citizen he is obliged to put into these exercises the remnants of energy and soul that have not been dried up by his schooling. When his beard appears and his masculine strength has developed he is examined and certified by a special dignitary, who then brings him a young girl fit, in the dignitary’s opinion, to become the young man’s wife. The

offspring accrue to the advantage of society and are treated in exactly the same fashion as the parents were. When a man grows old, he is made a civic official and appointed to some existing department: he becomes a judge, or a treasurer, or is placed in charge of young people, according to what he has been found suited for. Trade and the handicrafts are considered demeaning to the full-fledged citizen and are forbidden by law.

The external forms in which these political convictions must be embodied are barely sketched in Plato’s works. He thinks that the wisest and worthiest must stand at the head of the state, but it is a matter of supreme indifference to him whether it be one sage or several.

As an aristocrat by birth and a man who thought himself immeasurably superior to the masses in intellect and moral dignity, Plato found the democratic form of rule repugnant... . According to Plato, rulers have no obligations towards the individuals they rule, so that deceit, violence, and arbitrariness are permitted as tools of government. The laws of morality which are binding on private individuals do not apply to statesmen; the latter must be wise but the right to judge the degree of their wisdom is taken away from the individuals most interested and is, it seems, granted only to the Demiurge. On the one hand, arbitrariness has only the limits he deigns to give it. On the other hand, no limitation is placed on submissiveness, and if it begins to slacken it must be increased artificially, by measures moral or physical, stringent or mild, depending on the patient’s constitution and the doctor’s discretion. The removal of harmful influences must play an important role in the moral education or medical treatment to be applied to the citizens of the ideal state. Homer is banished as an immoral teller of fairy tales; myths are rewritten and stuffed with exalted ideas; statues of Apollo and Aphrodite are draped in the interests of decency. To prevent citizens of the ideal state from being led into temptation by neighboring peoples, intercourse with foreign lands must be made as difficult and limited as possible. ... It would be useless to analyze such regulations, for they speak for themselves loudly and eloquently.

I shall permit myself the observation that to mankind’s credit, the spirit of Plato’s political ideas has never attempted to win a place in real life. The most unbridled despots – men like Xerxes of Persia, Caligula, and Domitian – have never tried to destroy the family or to reduce their nation to the level of a stud farm with – a stroke of the pen. Fortunately for their subjects, these gentlemen were not philosophers; they butchered people as a pastime, but at

least they did not try to remake mankind or systematically pervert their fellow citizens. Enlightened and intelligent despots like Louis XI, Tiberius, and Ferdinand the Catholic exerted a conscious influence on their subjects, but their projects and indeed their wildest dreams never achieved the majesty and boldness that mark Plato’s ideas. They shared the same aspirations, but Plato, spurred by his poetic genius, pursued these aspirations with unparalleled energy. The mighty spirit of criticism and doubt, the element of freethinking and individuality was the worst enemy of such aspirations and was therefore hateful to Plato. The slogan of national welfare provided all these men with a moral support, and Plato, too, employed it. The army was their material support, and the same force plays an important role in Plato’s republic. Like the sages of the ideal republic, these rulers thought themselves the worthiest and the best of their fellow citizens, men called upon to be the instructors and physicians of an underdeveloped and morally sick humanity. Roman torture and executions, the Spanish Inquisition, the campaigns against the Albigenses, Cardinal La Balue’s cage, the flames that licked Huss at the stake, the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew, the Bastille, and so on and so forth may be termed bitter but useful medicines which at various times and in varying doses the healers of mankind have administered to their patients willy-nilly, without asking their consent. The principle advanced by Plato in the Republic and the Laws is not unknown to latter-day European civilization.

Plato's Idealism 

Idealism, the theory that reality is based on absolute truths (or forms) and not materialism, is one of the oldest systematic philosophies in western culture.

Its origin dates back to Plato (427-347 B.C.E.), a student of Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.). Under his inspiration for challenging materialist convention, especially of Sophists, Plato developed idealism and greatly influenced the future of public education.

Moreover, the Greek philosopher Socrates' method of challenging the status quo of Greek citizens was through the dialectic question and answer approach that was done orally and not written down.

After his (Socrates) execution in Athens for his beliefs, Plato interpreted and most likely added to some of these dialogues. Today, scholars usually refer to the ideas of both philosophers as Platonic philosophy. Since the time of ancient Greece, many philosophers have contributed to the development of idealism. 

Platonic idealism consists of the philosophical, social and educational ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato. Being a disciple of Socrates, he believed in the Socratic dialectic method. This method can be seen in the Republic and the Laws, two of his famous works. After Socrates' death, he opened his own school, the Academy, in which he further developed idealism. The search for truth in all things through Socratic dialogue was the basis for the school.

The first principle and basis for platonic idealism is the concept of absolute truth.

Plato taught that truth is in all things. People should search for truth because it is eternal and perfect.

He envisioned that since there are universal truths in mathematics (the concept of 2+2=4 was true before being discovered), then there must be the same in other fields such as politics, religion and education.

Therefore, the search for absolute truth is the quest of the philosopher.

Being against materialism, he wrote about his second principle in the Republic.

There is a separation between the world of ideas (or forms) and world of matter.

The idea of the Good was the source of all true knowledge.

The world of matter was characterized as unstable, constantly changing sensory data that was untrustworthy.

He taught that people should embrace ideas and reject matter to progress toward the Good. This can be achieved through use of the elenchus

This is done through open-mindedness and not with a selfish desire to win. It is also requires a firm grasp of subject knowledge and critical focus.

Plato thought the elenchus or dialectic could be used to help people embrace ideas and become less materialistic.

It could help people to use reason to reach universal truths waiting to be discovered in many fields.

He believed it was the "dividing line" between the unpredictable world of the material and the uncharted, abstract world of ideas. 

 

Concerning his philosophy on education, Plato believed that

people are born ignorant, living in a cave of shadows and illusions, chained by apathy.

Those of us who break free and become enlightened have a duty to help the rest.

The philosophers and educators in Greek society had a duty to raise the self-awareness of its people by helping the ignorant discover knowledge.

 

The third principle was that Plato believed knowledge wasn't created, but discovered.

He believed that the human soul is born with true knowledge; however, it is lost when placed in a material body, which corrupts such knowledge (similar to Adam and Eve allegory).

Consequently, people have a lifetime of work to recall these forgotten truths.

Socrates illustrated a similar idea concerning undiscovered knowledge in his Doctrine of Reminiscence.

The kind of education Plato wanted was one where his students were encouraged to embrace the concept of the Good and the universal truths that already exist.

He wanted the state to take an active role in education Although he may have been the first to philosophize about art (paintings, sculpture, music, etc.), he felt it should be censored and regulated because it was an imitation of the material world and not reflective of true knowledge.

Plato saw a society where equal opportunity existed on all levels. Girls and boys could develop themselves to the fullest, but those who showed difficulty in abstract thinking should pursue careers that contribute to the practical realities of life, such as industry, business and military affairs. There would be three classes: workers, militia and rulers. Those that demonstrated skill in the dialectic would become philosophers that would lead the state toward attaining the Good.

Forms

For Socrates and for Plato those ideas, forgotten truths are what matter and are what we know. Whenever we call numerous things by one name, it is because the mind confers a specific character on those things. It is that character which we know; it is

those characters which people our specifically human world. In Plato's Dialogues such a character is referred to as auto to, eidos, idea, or ousia, indifferently.

Many of the earlier Dialogues share a common pattern. In the course of a casual conversation, mention is made of a virtue, or Socrates may manoeuvre to smuggle in the word: in the Charmides it is temperance or self-control; in the Laches it is courage; in the Euthyphro it is piety. Socrates takes hold of the word and shows himself desirous, by the help of his interlocutor, to understand just what this virtue is in itself.

The question, when it comes, is put simply and directly: "Tell me what you say temperance is. (Charmides, 159a.)" "Let us first try to say what courage is ... Try to tell me, what is courage? (Laches, 190d-e.)" "What do you say the pious is and what the impious? (Euthyphro, 5d.)"

And when the interlocutor fails to understand the true intent of Socrates' question, as they commonly do, and answers by giving instances of the virtue in question, Socrates takes pains to explain that what he is after is not an instance and not an inventory of instances, but the character in itself, the one Form, idea (Euthyphro, 5d).

So he remonstrates with Euthyphro: "Remember then that I did not ask you to show me one or two out of the many instances of piety, but to show me the character itself by which all that is pious is pious. (6d.)"

Thus Socrates makes plain what it is he is after when he raises such a question: he wants to arrive at what gives a thing its character.

"Is it not by justice that the just are just? (Hippias Major 287c.)"

It is that search for an intelligible character distinct from the instances in which it is exemplified and the insistence on the logical and axiological priority of the unique intelligible character over the many existent entities that is the core of Socrates' whole thought and that is his lasting contribution to human thought.

It forms the pivot of Plato's Idealism and is the origin of what was to be known as the theory of Ideas (Forms).

In our speech we use words like good, bad, just, brave, equal, small, large. It is not possible to have language without such counters for general characters. Aristotle tells us we get our general ideas (universals) by abstraction from the things we experience. But what really is abstraction? A thousand trees seen one after the other or one beside the other will remain a thousand disparate impressions or a single conglomerate

impression. It is only when the mind creates the character 'tree' and decrees, "I will call that a tree", that trees become trees.

Likewise I see many things small and big. But nothing in itself is small or big. Nothing in my immediate experience is small or big. It is not enough that I see a thousand or a million small things to form the idea small, for nothing of what I see is small until I have named it small; nothing is small or big until I have created the distinctions small and big. This is so for every character, for every name. The mind creates a pattern by virtue of which the given in experience becomes meaningful.

In the Republic Socrates says that we assume a single Form (eidos) whenever there are many particulars to which we apply the same name (596a.). And further on he says that we have on the one hand numerous beautiful things and numerous good things, and on the other hand, a beautiful in itself and a good in itself, each a single Form (idea), a single being, that which is (597b).

 

Socrates saw clearly that the Forms which make discourse possible are not to be found in the objective world, do not come to us from outside us, but are born in the mind.

The whole of Socrates' life-work makes no sense apart from this, and whether we ascribe the doctrine of anamnesis to Socrates or to Plato, it was a fine mythical expression of the insight that all understanding is a flowering of the soul (mind). The truth at the core of the doctrine of reminiscence is the priority of the intelligible Form for understanding. To say that ideas are creations of the mind is not to say that they are arbitrary fictions: they are significant patterns in which alone the things of the world become meaningful.