Dialogue and Dialectic
The dialogue form in which Plato writes is more than a
mere literary device; it is instead an expression of Plato’s understanding
of the purpose and nature of philosophy. For Plato, philosophy is
a process of constant questioning, and questioning necessarily takes
the form of dialogue. Near the end of the Phaedrus,
Socrates expresses his reservations about written texts, worrying
that people will cease to think for themselves when they have someone
else’s thoughts written out in front of them. Plato took it upon
himself to write his thoughts down anyway, but he was careful not
to write them in such a way that we could easily assimilate his
thoughts rather than thinking for ourselves. Many of the dialogues
reach no definite conclusions, and those that do generally approach
those conclusions by casting doubts and examining possible counterarguments.
Plato cannot be there in person to share his thoughts with us, but
he wants to ensure that we think through them ourselves.
In keeping with this emphasis on dialogue form, Plato
develops an increasingly complex conception of dialectic, or logical
argument, as the engine that drives philosophical investigations.
In the early dialogues, dialectic consists of Socrates cross-examining
and refuting his interlocutors until he brings them to a state of
perplexity, or aporia. Beginning with the Meno,
Plato recognizes that dialectic can lead people not only to recognize
their errors but also to positive discoveries, as Socrates does
with the slave boy in the Meno. Plato is sufficiently
impressed with the possibilities of the dialectic that, in the Republic,
he makes it the highest achievement of his rigorous education program.
The Phaedrus introduces a more systematic version
of the dialectic, seeing it as a matter of “division and generalization,”
whereby we analyze concepts so as to understand the precise relations
between them. This process of division and generalization becomes
increasingly sophisticated throughout Plato’s works, and we witness
advanced versions of it in the Parmenides and the Sophist.
Combating the Relativism of the Sophists
Plato considers the sophists to be one of the primary
enemies of virtue, and he is merciless in his attacks on them. The
sophists, who were relatively new in Plato’s day, were a class of
itinerant teachers who instructed young statesmen in the arts of
rhetoric and debate for a fee. They taught that values are relative,
so that the only measure of who is right is who comes out on top.
Their teachings capitalized on a void left by the ancient myths
and religion, which were falling out of fashion as Greek civilization
moved toward a more rational worldview. The old values were losing
their relevance, and there were no new values to replace them. Plato
could see the danger this moral relativism posed for the state and
for the people who lived in it, and his attacks on the sophists
show up their hollow bravado that so many took for wisdom. Plato’s
Theory of Forms, and the whole enterprise of the Republic,
can be read as an attempt to find a solid grounding for moral values
in rational principles.
The Theory of Forms
The Theory of Forms maintains that two distinct levels
of reality exist: the visible world of sights and sounds that we
inhabit and the intelligible world of Forms that stands above the
visible world and gives it being. For example, Plato maintains that
in addition to being able to identify a beautiful person or a beautiful
painting, we also have a general conception of Beauty itself, and
we are able to identify the beauty in a person or a painting only
because we have this conception of Beauty in the abstract. In other
words, the beautiful things we can see are beautiful only because
they participate in the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of
Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging, unlike the
things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their beauty.
The Theory of Forms envisions an entire world of such Forms, a world
that exists outside of time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage,
Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the changes and imperfections
of the visible world.
Plato’s conception of Forms actually differs from dialogue
to dialogue, and in certain respects it is never fully explained,
so many aspects of the theory are open to interpretation. Forms
are first introduced in the Phaedo, but in that
dialogue the concept is simply referred to as something the participants
are already familiar with, and the theory itself is not developed.
Similarly, in the Republic, Plato relies on the
concept of Forms as the basis of many of his arguments but feels
no need to argue for the validity of the theory itself or to explain
precisely what Forms are. Commentators have been left with the task
of explaining what Forms are and how visible objects participate
in them, and there has been no shortage of disagreement. Some scholars
advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect examples on which
the imperfect world is modeled. Others interpret Forms as universals,
so that the Form of Beauty, for example, is that quality that all
beautiful things share. Yet others interpret Forms as “stuffs,”
the conglomeration of all instances of a quality in the visible
world. Under this interpretation, we could say there is a little beauty
in one person, a little beauty in another—all the beauty in the world
put together is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself was aware of the
ambiguities and inconsistencies in his Theory of Forms, as is evident
from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides.
In essence, the Theory of Forms represents Plato’s attempt
to cultivate our capacity for abstract thought. Philosophy was a
relatively new invention in Plato’s day, and it competed with mythology,
tragedy, and epic poetry as the primary means by which people could make
sense of their place in the world. Like philosophy, art and mythology
provide concepts that help us to understand ourselves, but art and
mythology do so by appealing to our emotions and desires. Philosophy
appeals to the intellect. The Theory of Forms differentiates the
abstract world of thought from the world of the senses, where art
and mythology operate. Plato also argued that abstract thought is
superior to the world of the senses. By investigating the world
of Forms, Plato hopes to attain a greater knowledge.
The Theory of the Tripartite Soul
In the Republic and the Phaedrus,
Plato describes the soul as divided into three parts, labeled appetitive, spirited,
and rational. He offers this division partly as
a way of explaining our psychological complexity and partly to provide
a justification for philosophy as the highest of all pursuits, because
it corresponds to the highest part of the soul—the rational part.
We might feel the pull of these three parts when presented with
a bowl of ice cream, a roast we accidentally overcooked ourselves,
and a healthy salad. The appetitive part of our soul will crave
the sensual pleasures it will derive from the ice cream, the spirited
part of our soul will want to eat the charred roast out of a sense
of pride in our own work, and the rational part of our soul will
want to eat the salad as the healthiest of the three options. In
proposing a tripartite soul, Plato acknowledges and seeks to explain
the fact that we all experience inner conflict from time to time.
We would be justified in seeing this theory as the starting point for
psychology. However, Plato’s theory seeks not only to explain inner
conflict but also to present the rational part of the soul as superior.
Philosophy is essentially the practice of refining and foregrounding
our rationality.
The Importance of Education for the Health of the
State
In both the Republic and the Laws,
Plato identifies education as one of the most important aspects
of a healthy state. He lays out detailed education programs that
start with exercises pregnant women should perform to ensure the
health of the fetus, and he goes on to explain not only what children
should study but also what values they should be exposed to and
what kinds of art and physical exercise they should engage in. Plato
apparently considered most of his fellow Athenians to be hopelessly
corrupt, easily inflamed by hollow rhetoric, and seduced by easy
pleasures. One can achieve only so much by arguing with a corrupt
soul that a virtuous life is better. Instead, Plato recognizes the
need to teach children from a young age to live virtuous lives and
to seek wisdom. Plato thinks that a child’s education is the last
thing that should be left to chance or parental whim, since the
young mind is so easily molded.
