Category: Plato

Introduction

Plato is one of the most known Greek philosophers in history. As a student of another great philosopher, Socrates, Plato learnt a lot and involved himself in the many issues that affected his society. Plato literatures continue to be important references in philosophy, even in the current times. Platonic schools that evolved from Platos work were the main form of school in the classic Greek and played a major role to formation of the society. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle made strong philosophical arguments that remain relevant more than Two thousand Five Hundred years after they have left. The issues of society and justice have always been important in philosophy. Most of Platos literatures focus of society, social problems and leaders. Plato dialogues address the moral and ethical issues in his society in a different approach that draws implied conclusion.

Most of Platos literatures are structured in form epistles and dialogues. Dialogues make the major part of his philosophical writing and it is through them that his philosophical thoughts are obtained. Platos dialogues bring out philosophical issues in the society, divergent arguments towards the issues and convincing conclusion. Use of dialogues makes Plato unique in his work.

Historical Overview

Plato is a renowned Greek philosopher in Classical Greek period. He is also remembered as the pioneer in western academies through his Platonic schools. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, the great Greek philosophers, are closely related (Barnes & Chadwich 107). Plato was a student to Socrates, borrowing much from him while Aristotle was a student to Plato. This lineage of philosophers formed an important foundation to other philosopher after them. Memories of Plato are brought out through his sophisticated dialogues and letters. Platos dialogues numbers to thirty-five with The Republic as the leading and most referred Dialogue. One unique factor in Platos dialogues is that Platos personal position on issues is not expressed explicitly. The main character in most dialogues is Platos mentor, Socrates, who represents Platos position.

Discussion

Plato arguments for nature of justice

Platos dialogues bring out the nature of justice in the society. The nature of justice has been a major issue in philosophy and ethics. From early days philosophers, individual and the society in general have tried to understand justice. The definitions of justice in the societal or individuals level differ across different part of the world. In consequence, the way people understand justice influence how they relate with each other. Plato addresses the issue of justice in most of his dialogues (Barnes & Chadwich 7). He tries to understand how his society defined justice and the consequences of these definitions. Plato does not leave the issue at descriptive level alone but he criticizes the definition to find their strength and weakness.

Platos dialogues bring out common themes in justice. In most of his dialogues, Plato sees justice as a balance between the three main elements of the soul. The three elements of the soul are explained as the desire or drive, appetite, and reason (Sayers 51). According to Plato and Jowell, &we shall expect to find that the individual soul contains the same three elements and that they are affected in the same way as are the corresponding types in society, (54). The balance between these three elements in every individual determines whether and an individual is capable of justice. On the other hands, the dialogues show that imbalance in these elements is what make an individuals to act in unjust way. Desire, one of the elements of the soul is defined as the drive or motivation behind an action. The implication made by this element is that, for every action, there is a motivation. Appetite on the other hands is seen as the element of the soul that makes someone to be spirited towards as action. As implied by most of the dialogues, being spirited makes individual to act out side towards the goals set by the desire. Finally, reason is the element of the souls that rules over both desire and appetite. The relationship between desire, appetite and reason is brought out in the allegory of Phaedrus (Sayers 57). One of the horses in the allegory represents the desire while the other horse represents the appetite. On the other hands, the driver of these horses represents the reason. The sun, the goal at which the horses and driver head toward, represents the prime goal in life. As justice is viewed as one of the most important goal in life, the sun also represents justice. Plato emphasizes on the need for a balance between the three elements of the soul. The story of Icarus gives warning to lack of such a balance. Individuals should not fly too close to the sun or too low to the ground.

According to Plato, the nature of justice in individuals can be understood by reviewing the nature of a society. Platos dialogues help him review a society and postulate the ideas nature of a society to reflect the nature of justice. Plato argues that the balance between the three elements of the soul in the society soul reflect the balance in individuals (Sayers 87). In search of and ideal nature of justice, Plato set out for a plan for a just society.

Plato views a small state as the best example where the nature of justice can be addressed. A small state enables division of labor, specialization. Division of labor and specialization enable different needs of different people to be met through combined effort of members of the society. &we decided that a society was just when each of the three types of human character it contained performed its own function, (Plato, & Jowett 54). Problems observed in a society according to Plato include some people in the society seeking luxury; some people who are not members of the society may seek to benefit from the society and inability of society to be protected by the guardians alone. The issue of guardian of the society is a major issue in the society. The main question on guardians is how the guardian would be checked given that the guardians themselves are prone to injustice. Presence of guardians in the society involves allocating some powers to some part of the society. The power allocated to some part of the society has to be checked but there are no other guardians to check the society.

Platos ideal state constitute of a state where people needs are achieved, each individual is involved on what they best at, only limited luxuries are allowed to the members and a military protection friendly to members of the society exist. Limited luxuries and military royalty is held as the most important of an ideal society. Plato believed that excessive luxury corrupts the soul and proposed a balance between luxury and power. He proposed the power of the society should only be delegated to members of the society who had control over their luxury.

Dialogue on the nature of justice in a state between Socrates and other individuals brought out the nature of justice in a clear way. Socrates is able to contradict the poor definition of justice. Socrates argues against Justice as doing good to friend by wrong to enemies by showing the danger of such a definition (Sayers 66). Socrates also brought out a strong argument against justice as giving back what belongs to the society. He give an example by showing that giving back a sword to its mentally unstable person would be just in conventional term, but unjust due to possible consequences.

Allegory of the cave

Knowledge and ignorance is an important theme in Platos dialogues. Plato understanding of knowledge and ignorance is brought out through his characters. Knowledge is viewed freedom from prison of ignorance and as light to the eye. The best account of knowledge and ignorance is narrated through The Allegory of the Cave. In the allegory, prisoners in the cave hold a wrong believe over the shadows that they see in the cave. A prisoner that is able to move out of the cave and discover the reality of the shadows represents the liberation nature of knowledge (Plato, & Jowett 243). One the other hand, individuals in the cave represents people in the society who remain imprisoned by ignorance. The allegory of the cave is a good example of the nature of our society. The cave represents the world. As the cave, the world hides many truths to people who live in it. The shadows in the allegory represent the images that the prisoners in the cave could see through their senses. The shadows show the deceptions which human is prone through reliance on sense information. True knowledge is not possible for all; it is only possible to those who engage in the journey for knowledge.

World of appearance is compared to the shadows in the cave. Plato viewed the observable nature of the world only as a reflection of other invisible ideas. Although he believed that appearances were important, he was against obsession on appearance at the expense of the actual truth of the appearances. The ideals, according Plato, constitutes of the Archetypes from which appearance derive. The journey to the exit of the cave is the struggle involved in acquiring knowledge and away from ignorance. Although the ideals are the most important elements for knowledge, the journey to knowledge starts with the shadows.

Allegory of the Cave is a good reflection of the journey to knowledge. People in the society today invest a lot of resources and time to acquiring knowledge. Although acquiring knowledge is not equal to being a philosopher, knowledge is part is part of philosophy. As exemplified in the example of the prisoners in the cave, the reality of sense information may be difficult to tell (Plato, & Jowett 97). The journey from ignorance to knowledge, thus, requires ability to question the truth of our perceived world. A philosopher is an individual who persevere the struggle in search of knowledge and continues with the journey until the end. Understanding of a philosopher according to Plato is a bit different form our current understanding. Contrary to our view of philosophy as love of opinion, Plato emphasizes a philosopher as someone who seeks knowledge that is able to transform the society.  The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy? (Plato & Jowett 261). A philosophy leader, thus, is a leader who knowledge beyond sense knowledge as is seen as the ideal leader.

Duality nature of Platos Dialogues

Although Platos dialogues bring out a lot of philosophical knowledge, is fails in some elements. The dialogues bring out duality on some issues. The arguments made on nature of justice in the society bring out inconsistencies on definition of justice. For example in a dialogue in The Republic, Socrates describes Kallipolis as an example of an idea state. In the dialogue, Socrates implies that and idea state, where there was justice, was the state with strict division of labor (Sayers 56). Afterwards Socrates further argues that justice was the essential thing that brought in virtues in the city-state. However, Socrates argument on the nature of justice in the city was based on assumption that the perfect state was the most just. Since Socrates makes an assumption of the very conclusion be draws, his argument becomes invalid.

Platos position is not well set out in some dialogues. The reader of the dialogues fails to separated Socrates and Platos position. Socrates, as a character, represents most of Platos views on topics under discussion but Plato also include Socrates own opinions. Some Platos dialogues seem to be aimed at winning arguments rather than expressing objective opinion. Socrates seems to undermine other characters opinions even when they seemed strong.

Conclusion

Platos work in philosophy is very relevant to the field of philosophy today. As one of the major classic Greek philosophers, most of current western thoughts constitute some of his opinions. Plato addresses justice, ethics and politics in his dialogues in details. For justice, Plato proposes a balance between desire, appetite and reason. The journey from ignorance to knowledge is exemplified in the example of the cave. Dialogue enables Plato to feature philosophical issues in the society in a more realistic way. Despite of the strength in the dialogues, some arguments bring about duality by contradicting some addressed issues. Plato will continue to be significant in philosopher despite of many other philosophers after him.

Work Listed

Barnes, Hare. & Chadwich. Founders of Thought. London: Oxford Paperbacks Oxford University Press, 1991.

Plato & Jowett. The Republic. New York. Vintage.

Sayers, Sean. Platos Republic: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.

Introduction

Plato grew in a family of high social class and political influence in that; he would have taken a noble role in Athenian politics. Nevertheless, he did not wish to live a political life because he witnessed injustices perpetrated by rulers, who were his relatives and friends.

Plato witnessed the unfortunate execution of fellow philosophers and thus, preferred to receive severe penalty than participate in promoting injustice and evil actions that characterized political powers.

When a revolution that changed the constitution occurred, Plato longed to participate in politics and public affairs; however, he was surprised when he noticed how the new regime instituted other injustices by avenging on perceived enemies from previous regimes.

It was a shock for Plato to see powerful people in government summoning Socrates to court and charging him with impiety before condemning him to death. Through such experiences, Plato observed that injustices would dominate society until when rulers become philosophers and use their wisdom to discern and change the retrogressive constitutions of their cities.

According to Reeve, Plato argues that, people will only achieve a just society if a king becomes philosopher or philosopher becomes a king (6).

Thus, justice in society depends on wisdom that rulers employ in their governance. According to Plato, the best way to avoid abuses of political powers is by electing philosophers as rulers because they have the wisdom to discern justice from injustice, and thus prevent the occurrence of political injustices.

The Problem of Power

Plato holds that, there is a power problem in politics because politicians misuse power to achieve their desired ends no matter whether the means is justice or injustice. In trying to unravel the problem of power associated with politics, Plato questioned on what constitutes morality in society.

Based on his experiences, Plato realized that there was a power problem in politics, for he lived in tyrannical regime that executed philosophers and promoted injustices. Consequently, he did not get involved in public affairs and politics despite the fact that his relatives and friends were in power.

Rulers misused political powers for selfish interest because they perceived human actions as either beneficial or unbeneficial, thus recognizing morality and laws as mere conventions that one ought not to follow.

According to Reeve, Plato noted that rulers have been committing injustice to society because they perform actions that are only advantageous to them while disadvantageous to other people (20). Although justice elevates individual and state, unwise rulers cause injustice in society for they do not realize the essence of justice and morality.

In dialogue with Socrates, Plato affirms that justice is the most desirable virtue in society because of its inherent goodness and consequential happiness it bestows to humanity. Thus, Plato pointed out that injustice or justice occurs at individual and state level. In this view, rulers concentrate on actions that benefit state and later examine their consequences at an individual level.

Therefore, it means that rulers have a significant responsibility of ensuring that people receive justice at an individual level relative to justice at the state level. Reeve asserts that, Plato held that habits and principles that rulers exhibit at the state level emanate from individual attributes (140).

Thus, if a ruler has no wisdom and virtues, it is probable that injustice would dominate society. A ruler must have virtues and wisdom, which is essential in guiding one to make just decisions and perform just acts for the sake of justice, rather than selfish interests of attaining advantageous ends.

Therefore, Plato believes that unwise rulers abuse their political powers by perpetuating injustice in society. Moreover, Plato argues that non-philosophical rulers do not like truth to flourish in society because truth reveals injustice enables them to achieve their desired political ends.

It became evident that when philosophers like Socrates and others enlightened Athenians, political figures planned to execute them because they did not want people in society to understand their unjust actions and agitate for their rights.

Plato and Socrates concur that, justice emanates from personal attributes such as virtues and wisdom because political leadership has numerous forces, which influence how rulers make decisions and implement them accordingly.

Fundamentally, false ideology of politics and ethics distort how rulers perceive ethical truth, which subsequently influences delivery of justice to people.

According to Reeve, Plato believes that, &virtuous people can gain genuine knowledge of ethical truth, because they alone can achieve genuine understanding of the virtuous life (19). Thus, the lack of virtuosity on the part of rulers has contributed to a great deal of injustices, which have clouded political leadership and created governance problems in society.

Philosophical Rulers

Plato believes that, philosophical rulers are true leaders who can create a just society, which recognizes the interests of everyone, despite the difference in social class or ideology. Since philosophers have wisdom, they have the capacity to discern what is expedient for humanity.

Reeve argues that, a state will deliver justice when kings and princes become philosophers or embrace power and spirit of philosophy (180). Philosophy is an integral component of leadership because, it guides rulers on how to handle diverse people and satisfy different political interest that they have, with respect to administering justice.

Since philosophers have superb wisdom, they are able to ensure that everyone in society receives fair treatment, unlike unwise leaders who misuse political powers for selfish interests while neglecting justice. To the unwise rulers, ethics and laws are secondary to selfish interests, while to the wise rulers, ethics and laws are central elements, which are essential in creating and promoting a just society.

In philosophy of government, Plato argues that philosophers are the most knowledgeable members of society; thus, they deserve to be rulers because they understand what is right for humanity and government.

Given that governance is complex, it needs wise rulers with expansive and diverse knowledge so that they understand different interests of people and satisfy them harmoniously without causing undue discrimination, which subvert justice in society.

Misuse of power by political rulers has created numerous injustices, which could not have occurred, if they used philosophical ideologies that recognize equality. Since the serious problem that is facing leadership is misuse of power, philosophical rulers provide a credible solution because they use wisdom when solving daily challenges of life.

Reeve contends that, philosophers love knowledge and continually stick to its principles in spite of political influences (196). Knowledge that philosophers cherish is essential in political leadership as it aids rulers to make wise decisions concerning delivery of justice.

Hence, to avoid abuse of power, people need to make philosophers their leaders because immense wisdom that they have restrains them from abusing powers.

In addition to having knowledge, philosophers also value societal virtues. Philosophers use their knowledge, wisdom, and virtues in transforming society; thus, if given a chance to exercise dreams, they are going to build a better society that has its foundation in justice and virtue.

Having witnessed injustice that Athenian government committed under unwise rulers, Plato observed that philosophical rulers have the capacity of ensuring that governing principles depict moral values of society.

According to Reeve, philosophers are virtuous because they cherish truth (186). Given that philosophers love truth, selfish desires, which cause injustices, have no place in their hearts or minds. Moreover, wealth, honour and pleasure will not influence their leadership because virtues take precedence in life of a philosopher.

If a philosopher becomes a ruler, selfish acts of stealing, lying, assassination and even boasting will not occur in society because philosophers have principles and virtues that respect other humans in spite of their social class. Thus, philosophical rulers guarantee leadership that promotes virtues and morality in society and is free of selfish interests.

Plato argues that men in general do not like philosophical ideologies because they do not want to seek knowledge, wisdom and truth. In discourse with Socrates, Plato identifies four forms of government that unwise rulers lead in perpetuating injustice and pursuing selfish interests.

Tyrannical government is the first form of government that misuses political power in performing unlawful acts that undermine human freedom and dignity. Second form of government is democracy in which power and wild ambitions that are unnecessary are its driving forces, while oligarchy is the third form of government in which necessary appetites are driving for of a ruler.

Timocarcy is the fourth form of government in which honour and selfish interest are the driving forces of the rulers. According to Reeve, Plato describes the ruler of timocracy government as rough, proud, power hungry, lover of honour, and devoid of virtue (241).

Rulers of the above forms of government share similar characteristics in that they all lack wisdom, virtues, knowledge and that they are after selfish interests that create injustice in society. Since philosophers have proper attributes of leadership, society needs philosophical rulers to prevent the occurrence of injustice associated with excessive political powers.

Although philosophical rulers do not abuse their political powers, it is essential that a government should have a constitution that guide rulers and prevent them from committing injustice in society. Absence of the constitution provides immense freedom to rulers to make subjective decisions that suit their own interests, even though they are disadvantageous to people.

Plato confesses that, he did not join Athenian politics because he was waiting for an opportune moment when constitution would have changed because he perceived that, without constitution, nothing meaningful would ever come out of the Athenian government.

He believed that philosophical rulers are the only people who are able to discern what wrong in society, and act appropriately by formulating constitution that is going to guide all leaders in spite of their political backgrounds. Thus, philosophical rulers and constitution are critical components that political leadership requires in enhancing justice in society.

Conclusion

Plato perceives that the best way to avoid abuse of power is by electing philosophical rulers. Philosophical rulers are the best leaders because they have principles and values that guide them, unlike ordinary leaders who are subject to influences of pleasure, wealth and honour among other political forces.

Moreover, philosophers are wise, knowledgeable and virtuous, which are the best attributes that rulers require in preventing the occurrence of injustice due ignorance and immorality. Therefore, to enhance justice in society, philosophical rulers are critical because they provide appropriate leadership and a constitution for it provides a blue print of governing.

Works Cited

Reeve, C.D.C. ed. Plato Republic. 2^nd ed. Trans. George Grube. Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 1992.

In his book The Apology, the Greek philosopher Plato provides a version of Socrates speech during his trail a courtroom in Athens. Plato, being Socrates wrote the Apologetics to show how the great philosopher defended himself against the charges brought to the court by his accusers around 399 BC.^[1]

Socrates was accused of several accounts of corrupting the youth and heresy. Platos account of the speech remains a modern inspiration and source of philosophical lessons to philosophers and scholars in the contemporary world. Though called apology by Plato, the speech is not actually an apology- Socrates was attempting use his wisdom to justify his teachings and beliefs, and not to apologize for his actions.^[2]

First, his concise and clear explanation of his beliefs and the facts that led to his accusation are an indication of Socrates ability to defend himself against his accusers basing his arguments on the wisdom he had rather then attempting to discredit his thoughts. In this way, Socrates portrays his reputation he had developed from his great philosophical wisdom by discrediting the pre-Socratics and sophists. He argues that his wisdom originates from an oracle given to Chaerephon by Delphi that he (Socrates) would be the wisest man on earth.^[3]

Secondly, philosophers learn that a perfect understanding of human knowledge does not exist. Consequently, a perfect understanding of some terms such as virtue, justice and piety does not exist. In Platos The Apology, Socrates claims that although he possessed super wisdom that was not comparable to that of the Athenian wise men, poets and teachers, he humbly accepted his wisdom and knew that it could not be the most perfect.^[4]

Unlike the politicians, poets and craftsmen, Socrates arguments provide the modern philosophers with a model of a true and just philosophy.^[5] For instance, he accepts the antipathy and resentment, and goes to an extent of risking death rather then diverting from his own wisdom and discourage the students who had believed in him.

The Apology shows that Socrates was willing to face death rather than deny his wisdom. It is evident that Socrates love for wisdom outweighs human fear of death. He argues that he does not fear what he does not know (death), but fears human lack of knowledge and ignorance as portrayed by his accusers, the jury and the Athenian wise men.

In addition, Socrates speech is a motivation to modern philosophers in that his wisdom consists of ultimate, clear and precise thinking and presentation of ideas. This uniqueness portrayed by Socrates aims at teaching modern philosophers that questioning and clarification of human knowledge is a vital thing than affirming to the knowledge.

In addition, the speech shows that the role of the philosopher is not to be a critic; rather a philosopher must present the ideas in a concise and precise manner. The important thing is to present the ideas in a manner that describes the cause, process and effect of a given social, scientific and cultural problem.^[6]

In what appears to be the most inspiring argument in the field of philosophy, Socrates argues that if he was corrupting the youths in Athens and destroying the society, then the whole society would be corrupt and in the process he would destroy himself. He argues that he was not so foolish to an extent of using his knowledge to hurt his own society. This is an indication that philosophers should be responsible of their knowledge and arguments since the society can easily act according to philosophers arguments.

Bibliography

West, Thomas. Platos Apology of Socrates. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979.

Footnotes

1. Thomas West, Platos Apology of Socrates, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), 54.
2. West, 57.
3. West, 64.
4. West, 72.
5. West, 77.
6. West, 84.

Relationship between recollection and Knowledge

Plato had the conviction that individuals learn totally by means of recollection. He had the view that individuals naturally possess knowledge and that what they need is a direction for them to come to terms with what they already knew. In illustrating this point, Socrates (the character that Plato uses in the Meno) starts by quoting a section of a poem that asserts that the soul is immortal and there is no knowledge gained in the underworld.

According to Socrates, it is possible for a human to gain knowledge as he or she only requires bringing to mind that which his or her soul already knows, even though he or she is not conscious of knowing. Since Meno wanted to understand the concept further, Socrates called in a slave to exhibit the process of recollection using the Socratic Method.

His aim was to confirm that the servant, who lacks knowledge on geometry, is able to bring to mind some knowledge of the topic and give right answers when questioned by Socrates. To his disbelief, Meno observes the servant answer the geometric questions and he gets convinced on the argument put across by Socrates. The relationship between recollection and virtue

Although Socrates and Meno have come to a common understanding that neither can virtue be achieved through learning nor can it be inborn, they are now encountered with a final difficulty. All of them now examine the circumstances that make humans to be virtuous.

Plato (through Socrates) is satisfied to draw a conclusion to this mystery by asserting that virtuous statesmen exists only by means of divine inspiration. Plato claims that they talk about true things when under inspiration, but lack the knowledge of what they are proclaiming. In this sense, Plato relates virtue to a gift from the supernatural forces that goes along with a lack of understanding.

He seems to be of the opinion that virtue is an attribute that is difficult to define. Rather than applying the views on knowledge he had before, he perceives virtue as an attribute that a person is endowed with, and does not come through deep philosophical thinking or too much learning.

My view on Platos comments

My personal view on acquiring knowledge is contrary to what Plato postulates in the Meno. I have the opinion that when a person is born, he or she is like a blank page. For that reason, to fill the blank page, the person must be taught and learn without inherently acquiring the knowledge.

Everything that a person learns comes through teaching, but not from an inherent mechanism whereby a soul has to preserve knowledge. Therefore, I do not find Platos ideas to be compelling. Platos Ideas about recollection may continue to inform or influence what people know and learn.

For example, how does a kindergarten kid learn anything and realize that he or she has learnt without knowing if the thing existed? The kid would learn about different things and what they stand for simply because he or she was made to understand. Plato ends without giving any definitive answer to the term virtue. The dialogue strives to find the answer to the problem of virtue, hence exposes the fact that humans have knowledge and they do not know. Rigorous questioning exposes this inherent knowledge in human beings.

One of the most revered and celebrated philosophers in history, Plato helped lay the foundation of modern philosophy in the western world. Three of his works, the Euthyphro, the apology, and the republic not only encapsulate his ability as a philosopher but also offer an insight into his life as a man. While I was reading Platos ideas it occurred to me that there is a central notion which runs throughout all his pieces. One of education and how philosophers are authoritative voices regarding wisdom and its implementation. This paper will engage all three texts in an effort to provide new insight into this facet and the philosophical field.

I find it ironic that despite being a teacher and student Socrates and Plato share one key difference in their philosophical beliefs. That while Socrates believes that he is the most knowledgeable since he knows nothing, Plato in this very subject believes himself to be the authority since he assumes nothing and knows everything. Even though does not voice his belief in his works it is clear to me from reading his assessment of philosophers, that he truly believes himself to be at least wiser than those he seeks to teach. Allowing himself to be dwarf only by Socrates, perhaps because of his reverence for his master.

The question that enters my mind when I read the Republic is in regards to the fact that Plato considers education to be the defining act that separates those who do not know from those who know the Form of Good. In my viewpoint, I find this thought process perplexing because as philosopher I believe the only true beginning and end for great thinkers is within the realm of nothing. Because it is only within the realm of nothing that everything is assumed, nothing is known and the truth can be revealed. This was also the basis of the Euthyphro where Socrates revealed to his subject that he knew nothing in an effort to teach him something.

By contrast, it is understandable how taking Platos example of the cave dweller, it can be seen how new experience can color our ability to perceive the world around us. But if by seeing the ultimate form or the form of the good we truly know the ultimate object of knowledge. Then how can the attainment of the ultimate object reject the images formed in our minds from previous experiences, since they are in fact part of that knowledge and not as Plato suggests imperfections in our cognition?

If we take the example of a child who learns through their experiences in his own home. If the child is taken into the world outside, it does not mean that he will reject the experiences he has gained at home in favor of the experiences he gains outside. Nor does it show that such action is prudent. Rather he will incorporate such experiences and allow a new perspective to form. While it is possible that the world outside will reject his experiences and allow him to form new ones, it does not exclude the possibility that knowledge of those false experiences will be the basis of his wisdom as well.

Additionally, a scenario enters my mind regarding Platos interpretation of justice, that the pursuance of justice requires the sum of the whole to act as one regardless of the advantages or consequences that might befall them. In this case, if we take the example of the farmer and perhaps offer him the perspective that he is lacking. That he is merely a cog in the machine, that if he does not farm, his crops do not feed the warriors and in turn protect the city, that does not provide food for the citizens or material to trade with.

One question which enters my mind is that even though Plato says that the only way for these individuals to truly understand their importance would be to under a perspective that is beyond them. Instead of offering such a perspective, he merely says it is better for them to work in ignorance. That they should simply trust their philosopher-king to know what is best for them. While I understand how the lack of knowledge might be a debilitating factor in their decision-making process, I do not understand why Plato does not see the need for the education of these souls rather than their blind obedience.

If I consider Socrates teachings it seems that he wishes to provide an understanding of our environment by challenging our belief in what we know, while Plato simply regards accepting them as the most beneficial act. That it is better to leave the decision-making process to our leaders than to question them at every turn.

Taking education into account is a very difficult matter. On the one hand, the pursuance of knowledge is of paramount importance to not only know ourselves but also the world around us. Yet where does the attainment of knowledge end and education begin? Knowledge is simply words, phrases, books, and ideas of others who have come before. Education is the implementation and integration of those ideas and extensively challenging them until they yield new perspectives of which we were previously not knowledgeable. Where then is the line drawn between challenging such ideas and accepting them.

Should farmers accept their lot in life and grow crops because that is all they are meant to do. Or should they challenge themselves and bring new ideas into the fold. What action best serves us and not simply them. At what point does knowing nothing begin to be a hindrance rather than an advantage. Or perhaps is it simply that by continuously knowing nothing, do we reach the pinnacle of ultimate knowledge.

One thing I truly disagree with in regards to Platos interpretation of knowledge is the very foundation of what he considers to know. I do not believe that knowledge is a product of experiencing things around us; rather, it is knowing what is within us. Knowing what is around us is simply a matter of perspective. A blind man will not see a tree the same way a color-blind person does. Yet somehow they will both immediately know without being told it is a tree. Does this knowledge come from others, does it come from books, no, it comes from within? True the word used to describe these perspectives is a part of knowledge but they are not true education. Truly knowing is not a byproduct of perspective rather it comes from within. If we take such a sense into account then any one person can truly grasp the ultimate knowledge that Plato speaks of, they simply require guidance to know where to look. While it may be argued that Plato defines where to look like the Sun, I do not believe his concept of the philosopher-king ties into this thinking.

If human beings as a species rely on growth throughout our lives, as in when we are born we look inward and as we grow older we look outward. Yet throughout our experiences of looking outward we still have ways and perspectives of looking inward. Whether it be through prayer, insight, or perhaps even intuition we use the knowledge we gain from within us to explain the things we encounter outwardly. Then perhaps is it not apt to say that from nothing we gain knowledge of everything and from everything we gain knowledge of nothing. Following this logic then it would seem that the most ignorant of us would be the wisest, since they are not weighed down by knowledge and know nothing they must also be the most educated of us. Thus, by that contention, there is no reason that a farmer cannot rule and cannot rule better than a philosopher-king. Because the knowledge required in being a king is not a matter of outward perspective but rather what exists within. In fact, it is my contention that a person who knows nothing of being a king and is not weighed down by the issues and customs of the court would serve his people far better than one who has knowledge of all such practices. Just as a child would know that the simplest answer to a situation is usually the best one, so would a ruler unhindered by other concerns know the true meaning of what it is to serve his people.

References

Plato and Desmond Lee. The Republic. New York: Penguin Classics, 1998.

West, Thomas G. and Grace Starry West. Four Texts on Socrates: Platos Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito and Aristophanes Clouds . Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1998.

What conclusions can be reasonably drawn about the spiritual nature of the human being, or the Soul, based on your reading of the Phaedo, its commentators and secondary sources? You might include a treatment of the question whether or not there is such an identifiable entity as a Soul in reality, thus justifying your discussion of it. You might also address the question of its mortality, or immortality, as you see it.

The conceptions of soul and its immortality are central to Platos philosophical theories. In his dialogues Apology, Phaedo, Meno and Republic, the ancient philosopher not only provides a definition for the soul, but also analyzes its main components, and its connection with the physical body.

According to Platos philosophical doctrine, the soul is an imperishable, intelligent and indissoluble entity, which animates human body and continues to live after persons physical death. Platos philosophical theories are valuable for distinguishing between the phenomena of material and spiritual worlds, defining such an entity as a human soul and selecting the appropriate parameters for evaluating it, taking into account its spiritual and imperishable nature.

Platos Apology represents Socrates defense speech in which the great philosopher raises the issues of death, improvement of soul and immortality. This dialogue supports the idea that after the death of a physical body, a human being continues its existence in another form. Socrates is accused of inventing new gods and influencing the youth of Athens by his teaching.

The fact that the speech is delivered at court before the accused is recognized as guilty and is sent to prison intensifies the impression from his reasoning concerning the fear of death.

Rejecting the fear of death, Socrates states that no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good (Plato Apology). Thus, confronting the generally accepted definition of death as a negative phenomenon, the accused philosopher makes a supposition that disregarding peoples fear, the death of a physical body may appear to be the greatest good.

Not claiming for comprehensive knowledge, Socrates provides arguments for supporting his supposition that death is for good. Either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another (Plato Apology). Assuming both variants, Socrates puts emphasis upon the importance of improving the soul instead of concentrating on material values.

In general, the accused philosopher does not insist on a particular view but rather offers to take all possible versions into consideration. Though Socrates does not insist on immortality of soul, the fact of its existence is undeniable for him. At the end of his speech, Socrates states: The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways  I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows (Plato Apology).

Thus, it can be logically assumed that the finishing phrase of Socrates speech restates his main idea concerning uncertainty of existence after the death of a physical body. However, in his following dialogues, Plato develops his idea of immortality of soul and provides more arguments for dispelling Socrates doubts.

Developing the theme of life after physical death, Plato devotes his dialogue Phaedo to the issue of immortality of soul. The philosopher provides four weighty arguments for separating soul from the material world and supporting his claim that its life continues after the death of a physical body.

Socrates, as the main speaker of the dialogue Phaedo uses the argument from the opposites for claiming that death as the opposite category for life cannot be regarded as the permanent end. The philosopher assumes that all the opposite categories are transitional and generated from one another. Anything which becomes greater must become greater after being less (Plato Phaedo). Thus, according to his reasoning, for becoming thinner, a person had to be fatter previously, while for becoming fatter, an individual had to be thinner.

Taking into account this notion and admitting that death is the opposite for life because these two conditions are mutually exclusive, it can be logically assumed that not only life can be transferred into death but also death can be transferred into life in an endless circle of generation of the opposites. However, the categorization and opposition of the states of life and death is rather questionable, and this fact reduces the strength of the argument from the opposites for supporting the idea of immortality of soul.

Despite the weakness of the argument from the opposites, it raises the issue of existence after the death of the physical body. Though this argument is insufficient for supporting the assumption of life after death, it is an important starting point which prepares listeners for further argumentation.

The second argument defined as a theory of recollection points out at the importance of eternal knowledge for all people. Socrates assumes that earth knowledge represents the process of recollecting things that an individual knows before his/her birth but then forgets and has to recollect during the physical life. The philosopher argues that the true knowledge is the awareness of the basic unchanging forms, which are necessary for comparing and contrasting various phenomena, finding out their differences and similarities.

For example, the knowledge of the form of equality allows a person to compare the length of two sticks and assume that they are equal. Discussing the range of the eternal forms, Socrates admits that we are not speaking only of equality absolute, but of beauty, goodness, justice, holiness, and all which we stamp with the name of essence in the dialectical process (Plato Phaedo).

Thus, theory of recollection supports the idea of the immortal soul as the bearer of knowledge of the eternal forms, implying that the life of the soul goes beyond the limits of the life of the physical body, starting before its birth and continuing after its death.

In his third argument, Socrates involves the category of affinity for distinguishing between perishable material objects, which are perceptible and spiritual things which can only be grasped by thought.

The physical body consisting of material particles belongs to the first group of perceptible objects, while the soul does not consist of particles and belongs to the group of spiritual things. Admitting that the soul differs from the mortal body significantly, Socrates makes an attempt to prove that the soul which is not composed of particles is exempt from destruction and consequently can be recognized as immortal.

However, commentators admitted that this difference is insufficient for supporting the claim that the life of soul is eternal. Interpreting this argument from affinity, critiques stated that this Socrateic argument was not categorical and can be summarized as the assertion that the soul is less subject to dissolution and destruction than the body, rather than, as the popular view has it, more so (Lorenz Ancient Theories of Soul).

Thus, it can be stated that the argument from affinity can be used for separating soul from the material world but is insufficient for supporting the claim of its immortality.

Socrates fourth argument is based upon Platos theory of forms, which implies that perfect forms, such as the forms of beauty and life do not admit their opposites at all. Thus, the form of beauty as one of perfect forms is self-sufficient and does not contain the form of ugliness at all. Then, it can be logically assumed that if the form of life does not include the form of death, the soul, which animates people and is connected to the form of life cannot be influenced by death of the physical body.

Presenting all his arguments, Socrates manages to persuade his listeners that the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and changeable (Plato Phaedo).

In general, it can be stated that discussing the nature and functions of the soul in his dialogue Phaedo, Plato defines it as an intelligible, indissoluble and consequently immortal entity animating human mortal and changeable body.

Plato uses the idea of immortality of the soul as an axiom for supporting his claims concerning the process of acquiring knowledge in his dialogue Meno. Developing the idea which was expressed in the second argument of the dialogue Phaedo, the philosopher uses the principle of the immortality of soul as the truth which has already been proven and acknowledged for supporting his claim that the process of acquiring knowledge represents the process of recollecting something that was already known but later forgotten.

In a rather matter-of-fact manner, Socrates as the main speaker of the dialogue, states that the soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist (Plato Meno). Then, the philosopher continues his argumentation without providing additional support for his claim concerning the immortality of the soul.

Certainly this assumption would be insufficient for proving the claim, and the dialogue should be perceived in the context of the rest dialogues by Plato shedding light upon the same issues of soul and its immortality. Thus, the idea of imperishable and indissoluble soul has become an integral element of Platos philosophical conception, which was used for supporting other ideas and could be supported in its turn with other fragments of the doctrine.

Continuing his exploration of the human soul, Plato raised the issue of its immortality in his dialogue Republic, expanding his theory with new categories. In Republic, the philosopher divides the soul into the three main parts and attributes the mental and psychological functions to soul. In this dialogue, the reason, spirit and appetite are recognized as the main parts of the soul, while each of them is responsible for a particular function of this spiritual entity.

This structuring pattern is used to explain the struggle between persons desires as the struggle between the components of one entity. Lorenz says: The Republic theory involves not so much a division of soul as integration into soul of mental or psychological functions that had been assigned, somewhat problematically, to the body (Lorenz Ancient Theories of Soul).

Thus, exploring psychological and mental aspects of human existence through the lens of the soul, the philosopher proceeds to the domain of morality. Summing up the Republic theory of soul, it can be stated that The soul is that which the body loses at death. The soul is also that which the body loses through moral degradation (Phillips 94).

Thus, expanding his theory of soul in the dialogue Republic by dividing it into separate fragments and involving the psychological, mental and moral aspects of human existence, Plato makes his argumentation of the immortality of soul more consistent and relevant to the real life facts.

Taking into account Platos arguments concerning the role of the soul in recollecting the basic forms and the struggle between the desires, it can be logically assumed that the soul is responsible for animating the body which is only its physical container and accounts only for the short period of physical existence. Analyzing Platos philosophical doctrine, it can be stated that the soul as an imperishable and non-material entity continues to live even after being separated from the body due to its physical death.

Analyzing Platos dialogues Apology, Phaedo, Republic and Meno along with his commentators, it can be concluded that human life is not limited to the short period of physical existence of a physical body because the parameters of time, space and mortality which are applicable for evaluating the phenomena of material dimension are not suitable for analyzing such an imperishable entity as soul.

Works Cited

Lorenz, Hendrik. Ancient Theories of Soul. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 23 Oct. 2003. Web.

Phillips, Dewi. In Dialogue with the Greeks: Plato and Dialectic. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004. Print.

Plato. Apology. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.

Plato. Meno. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.

Plato. Phaedo. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.

Plato. Republic. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. n.d. Web.

Introduction

Plato, a philosopher used symbolism to draw out the meaning of humans mental quagmire as humans attempt to redefine objectiveness in life. According to Kreiss, through the Allergy of the cave, the allergy is presented as the sense in which we reveal our world, yet it is actually not exactly that, rather, an intellectual approach can comprehensively depict our viewpoint about our perception and insight about our world (Kreiss, p. 1). Here intellectualism is put on the spot as core in making the society enlightened. Enlightenment, according to Plato provides wisdom and direction courtesy of intellectual within the society.

Literature review

Brodeur and Orwell in their book 1984, draws out a picture of what entails a humans mentality about reality. The complex web of ideas, intentions and objectives, as observed in the book George Orwells 1984 is literary not possible to define or understand. Intellectually, perceiving the latter can provide insight about the reality of human intent, hopes and observation about its passion/desire to consummate imparted feelings, aspirations, and intentions offset by reality (White, pp. 157-169).

Border and Orwell suggest that reality is as result of an order that is inherent. Parents have to lead and exemplify handwork and discipline as core in the process of life for their children to take up such habits (Brodeur & Orwell, p. 18). Cognition is affirmed as core in the process of intent development. According to Classic Philosophers, Plato affirmed the distinctiveness of inderivability to provide an insight one how ones mind conceives a concept from a specific and logical viewpoint. Plato attaches the precedence of intellective over sensitive knowledge to makes of our concepts more than representative signs of what we desire to achieve in reality; it is an inner desire or an allergy that can be eased by achieving the conceptualized intent (Radical Academy).

The relationship between Platos approach and the George Orwells 1984 is observed within the Broduer and Orwells illustrations of lifes daily facets. Brodeur and Orwell conceptualize the human diligence and constant thoughts. By exemplifying their insights about the many things that cross ones mind through a diary, Big Brother is watching becomes a symbol of the consistency of suspicion and fear of wrong doing, aspiration to achieve objectives, intents, desire, and indulgence (Brodeur, and Orwell, pp. 10-19).

The crime of thought, as Winstons children call it is a serious crime; It onsets infidelity, intent of murder, corruption and other vagrant social realities. Reality is replicated in our minds through thought. In George Orwells 1984, thoughts consummate to dreams and the future, as we hope it would be, is defined and presented. Winston dreams about OBrien, which is indicative of a correlation between Platos presentations of hope for a reality through the symbolism of an allergy. Indeed, the thoughts, a subsequent dream, and then the intent to purport and consummate is like an allergy that cannot be achieved physically, but intellectually (Brodeur & Orwell, pp. 18-19).

Discussion

According to Steinhoff, affluence implied an abridgement of human liberty and might even lead to a lobotomy performed on the human spirit, but they had not observed that the myth of comfort is inadequately grounded in human nature (Steinhoff, pp. 123-236). About presenting ideas as reality, Plato based on Socrates teachings affirm that concepts are realistic offshoots of intent and do exists social and moral construct where factualness of intent and perception is seen as logic and morality (Radical Academy). Winston is representative of concepts via his diary and intent to keep a secret. This part provides insight about how we hide things from others, lie, and commit crimes without being caught (White, pp. 157-169). In Platos view, realities shroud the mystery of life and the intent of our minds. The daily facets of life are indicative of diverse ideologies about concept. It is how we conceptualize life through idealizing our hopes with observation. Learning is a process, that depends on an order of cognitive development and a systemized process that runs along a long trajectory observed as life (Radical Academy).

Works Cited

1. Brodeur, Karen, and George Orwell. George Orwells 1984. New Jersey: Research and Education, 1984. 10-19. Print.
2. Kreiss, Steven. Plato, The Allegory of the Cave. The History Guide. N.p., 2004.
3. Steinhoff, William. George Orwell and the origins of 1984. London: University of Michigan Press, 1975. 108-236. Print.
4. The Philosophy of Plato. The Radical Academy. Classic Philosophers; The Great Thinkers of Western Philosophy, n.d.
5. White, Nicholas. Plato on knowledge and reality. 5th. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1976. 157-169. Print.

The five dialogues of Plato are very important for students or any other person interested in knowing the art of philosophy. Philosophy is a very wide discipline that deals with a variety of fields thus making it very difficult for scholars to come up with a specific definition of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that is characterized by many questions and any person who can ask a question can be considered a philosopher in his or her own right. A philosopher should not blindly accept any answer without analyzing it critically. At the same time, a philosopher should avoid ambiguity when asking questions but should ask questions that can compel the respondents to think critically when answering them. Russell once stated that in Philosophy as a discipline, the answers that are given to questions are not important but what is important are the questions themselves. At the same time, one cannot claim to have learned philosophy without learning about ethics. It is on this basis that this piece of work tries to analyze Platos five dialogues.

Euthyphro dialogue is one of the five dialogues of Plato. In this dialogue, Euthyphro who is a lawyer-priest has met Socrates who is heading to the court to answer charges of creating and worshipping his gods instead of worshipping the gods of the society. Socrates is told that Euthyphros father is to be prosecuted because of murdering a slave. The tricky part is that the slave had earlier committed murder. Given that Socrates knows that Euthyphro is a good lawyer, he asks him to explain to him so that he can know the whole truth about what is pious. During the conversation, Euthyphro has told Socrates that what is pious simply means doing what pleases the gods. This answer is not satisfactory according to Socrates and goes to court without adequate truth. The theme in this conversation is the controversy about the truth. It is not clear which gods are the true ones between the gods of Socrates and the gods of society. Pious simply means something that is morally upright but in this conversation, what is pious is that which pleases gods but it is not clear which particular gods.

In the apology dialogue, Socrates tries to defend himself that he is innocent from the charges of Mellitus and the charges of corrupting youths. He also disputes the pronouncement made by a certain oracle that he (Socrates) is the wisest man in society. In this dialogue, Socrates says that he is not wise and all other people who claim to be wise are not wise either. This is a philosophical statement and in fact, Socrates has vowed to continue practicing philosophy the moment he is cleared of any wrongdoing because he is compelled by the gods to continue philosophizing. Socrates has willingly accepted the death sentence after being convicted but he warns the citizens to be prepared for youths who will definitely question people the same way he has done. Questioning is one of the characteristics of philosophy and when Socrates indicated that questioning will continue even after his execution, he implied that philosophy has been in the society and will continue existing even after death of known philosophers. From this dialogue, there should be no restrictions to what should be questioned. People should question anything including religious beliefs that are doubted.

In the dialogue with Crito, Socrates tries to convince Crito that it is right for him to face the death penalty that has been imposed on him by the court. He further explains that he has not been wronged in any way by the society or the laws but by the men in the society. He stands to his ground that he is innocent and that if he escapes from prison and runs away there will be no difference between him and the law-breakers that the jury has already concluded that he is. This discourse implies that people should always try to follow due process of the law. It also implies that people should continue doing what is right even when they are wrongfully convicted.

Meno is one of Platos friends and a dialogue with him raises a question of whether virtues can be taught or not. Meno argues that one cannot learn about virtues and practice them. Socrates tries to explain to him that learning simply means recollection. After a long discussion, Meno agrees that virtue is simply knowledge and can be learned just the same way people learn to acquire other knowledge. This dialogue reveals that even bad people who practice vices in society can learn what is morally upright and be good people in society. However, no person can claim to practice virtues always and therefore fit to teach the virtues.

Lastly, the Phaedo dialogue indicates that Socrates accepted death without any fear. He claims that the aims of true philosophy can only be achieved when one escapes bodily evils through death. This may signify that it might not be easy for people to find the ultimate truth until they die. Even though there is no proof that there is eternal life after death, people should always try to do good things even if it means losing their lives because they may later enjoy eternal life.

Introduction

Plato, a commendable adherent of Socrates philosophy is the prized delight with the sole aim of discovering knowledge, by filtering through the facts of universal being to establish reality. As far as the great philosopher was concerned, reality cannot be deciphered through sense-perception, senses only give realitys face value.

True knowledge is perfectly aware of itself, based on reasons and its certain of its ground (De Crescenzo, 1992.p.112) unmistakably, Plato brings out knowledge as a tenet independent of its contents and peripheral objects which match up the ideal perception of the reality.

In Platos dialogues coalesced in the Republic, he brings out the metaphysical makeup of reality and how humanity relates to it. Platos philosophy is inundated with religious overtone, gods, as it were, play a massive role to curve his perception and views extended forth. This study will elucidate the critical role gods and the concept of divinity play right through the entirety of Platos Republic Dialogues.

Platos Cosmology

As Plato recounts the episode Myth of Er found in the republic dialogue phaedo and the story of time reversal in the statesman, a clear view of the hierarchical arrangement of the cosmos is illuminated. The analogy known as Timaeus spells in staid detail how a universal god shaped orderly world from a muddled universe (Plato, 2007.p.317)

The creator proceeded to form a world with a soul connotated as she, and the globe which constituted the four elements known as water, fire, earth and water. (Crossman, 1981.p.76) The soul blended both the interior and exterior worlds, and it was centered in the human body integrated with a similitude different from both the bodily and the eternal (De Crescenzo, 1992.p.69)

The human soul has a revolving the soul also had revolving inner and outer spheres analogous to the universal bodily ones (Melling,1987) Afterwards, as Platos creation depicts, the single god created time and also brought to being the host of Greek gods. The gods formed by the supreme creator of the world were given instructions by the maker of the world to create human beings and other creatures.

In book x of the Republic the Myth of Er is recounted where the author offers more details of the life beyond (614b- 617 621b). The character called Er resurrects and gives an account of the various places that he had visited in the after world. He elaborately, he described a cavern where souls are taken after exiting the mortal world into eternity.

In this corral, souls are elevated to observe both their outer and inner realms Mr. Er story, introduces a theory of a transcendent land where human souls discard their old self and reborn as different entities (Lycos, 1986.p.76). Plato believes that the souls that had thoroughly purified themselves through philosophy, they would live without bodies in very habitable beautiful place (Plato, Guardian, 114c)

In relation to the universe, although the philosophers arguments are not supported by impeccable logic, he explains how the inner and outer souls of the universe exhausted their appointed number of births. When their time span elapsed, the pilot of universe released the handle of its rudder and destiny and took charge of the world upturning its revolution (The Statesman, 272d-e).

Immediately, there was shock on the universe and it became disorderly. God noticed its anxiety and took control of the universe once more. (The Statesman, 273d). The significance of this tale in Platos cosmology is that it details Gods abandonment of and involvement with the universe; it further validates the subsequent interference of our worlds past, which is currently going through a healing process.

Platos Account Of gods

Plato brings in the concept of a supreme god, the universal worker known as demiourgos. This name implies the one who works for the demos, the people. Demiourgos is immortal and in charge of time and the other junior gods responsible for creation of man.

The worker is believed to have created other lower gods and the essence of time known as the moving image of eternity (Plato, 2007.p.127) In order to bring into being the other creatures in the kosmos, demiourgos passed on logos, the divine soul to smaller gods so that they could create a man so that he could host the logos.

Plato brings forth incredible philosophical laws tenets which adversely affect his view of the world and his intrinsic valuation for the creator and created beings. In order for demos or the created people to exist in harmony they had to uphold the existence of spirituality. The first reality in regard to divinity was the tenet that god and gods existed and they symbolized absolute, good, truth and justice.

The second tenet extends the view that the world comprises of both visible and invisible forms and its not necessarily a material thing(Plato,2007.p.312) Further, Plato noted that demiourgos created the world to bring order, and this created world could never be bought or ruined by mens effort. No one has the ability to corrupt the fiber of the world, for god, demiourgos is in charge and control of what happens to the created world.

Plato posits a key principle that gods should be looked upon as good and as the source of what is eternally good. Representing gods in any other way, besides good and pious was a misdemeanor as far as the philosopher was concerned. The positive conception of gods affects Platos philosophy in a massive ways, as he pursues the truth which is symbolized in perfect goodness of gods he seeks to find out what is real and, true and just.

Dialogues excerpted from the Republic bring out gods as perfect being endowed with perfect bodies and credulity; they are beautiful and cannot be harmed or killed by the human race. The immortality factor makes gods to stay constant and they do not need to beget child gods to replenish them (Plato,2007 p.614b- 617 621b)

Plato further delved into classifying gods as either visible or invisible; the visible gods were the most recognized by human race. The visible gods acquired the status of deity because people deemed them to be eternal since they appeared on the globe forever. The Greeks called god theos but later with the founding of cities other gods were assimilated into their beliefs including Zeus, Athena, Hera, Olympians amongst other(Lycos,1986.p.112)

Plato called the later gods, civilicized deities who were aware of the human beings and understood that men could distinguish between good and bad. Like the visible sky above, the above named gods lasted in a timeless sphere as immortal beings and they could not be corrupted like the created human race.

Both the visible and invisible gods were in complete control of their bodies, their minds, unlike humanity, were fully in charge of their bodies and were not prone to deceit or temptations like people are. The invisible gods were hidden to the physical eye of man but could reveal their forms to mankind as they wished.. The both groups of gods were good to human beings and they always rendered benefits to people.

For example the sun, believed to be a prominent visible god is offers, light and heat to enhance growth and sustain life of living beings; the planets, starts offer light and also tell about times and seasons. The invisible beings were specifically concerned with individuals well being like Zeus and Hera (Eileman, 1985.p.201)

Eternal And Natural Forms

In the Republic Plato explains in staid detail the concept of god and gods, his tacit view does not coincide with religious views and its not equated to the religious interpretation of who or what God is.

In Republic, Platos point is not trying to explain the concept of God but he goes deeper to establish what true, good is or just; in his endeavor to unfound the mystery of the truth he brought forth the vague idea of God. From the view of Plato, God is the prerequisite and the source of the forms and the eternal abstract static objects of the understanding. (Plato 412)

In Platos view there is the concept of objective good, as far as Plato was concerned wisdom, beauty. Moderation, courage were realities; more real than the visible and touchable things of the world and these realities he called forms. (De Crescenzo, 1992.p. 314) It was the conviction of Plato that the visible world comprises of half real and half vague reality that the outer world was on the middle area between certainty and uncertainty.

The soul of a human being can bridge between the real forms and the level of body,; human beings are tied by the body in this but through reflections the soul is able to raise to a plane of recognizing the forms. Forms are much advanced the real world and they cannot be perceived through the physical eye rather they are perceived through the eye of the human mind.

Forms, in platonic view are treated in a divine way, he expresses their attributes to display their beauty and perfection and their enduring character which makes them eternal. Forms only comprise poor alternatives for gods and the goddesses although they have no life and they are inactive.

Unlike the gods, forms dont think and neither do they move; they are intelligible since they can be known by the discerning and the wise. The philosopher did not bring out the forms as deities, but he expressed them as a lower form of divinity substituting gods although they are reticent and have neither life nor individual logic.

Role of gods in Platos Philosophy

Gods play an implicitly important role in the Platonic philosophical analogy. Being a keen seeker of the truth, he finds the basis and foundation of his pursuits in gods who exemplify piety, perfection, reality and the truth.

Deciphering the concept of god in platonic viewpoint can be is equated to the knowledge of actual truth which is genuine and entombs the essence of all goodness. (Lycos, 1986.p.213) The Platos way of comprehending God forms the elementary base and underpinning for all certain knowledge. In consequence, this level of Gods realization provides a demonstration reality in its fullness.

Platos view of the world draws its podium from the conception of gods who are perceived as utterly ethereal and above the plane of normal mind conception and can only be deciphered by philosophical wisdom. The ensuing role of this concept necessarily makes gods the plane through which wisdom and realization of reality are standardized. The gods standard of what is pure, good and true helps to gauge abstract ideas against the gods attributes backdrop so that all the intangible ideas are determined to be real or unreal.

Therefore, the ideology about gods forms the final stage in all Platos pursuit of truth and knowledge, every thing must have a source, and good things must be from a good source. Gods who typify good, wisdom reality must be the truth Plato is determined to find out. God is therefore the final representation through which the complete mechanism and center of theoretical ideologies of intelligible world and physical world is based (Melling, 1987.p.123)

In Platos philosophy God is considered as a separator of the physical and mental, as the personification of all created forms; God is also regarded as the highest level of understanding and wisdom (De Crescenzo, 1992.p.145) Everything in the sphere of ideas originates from the embodiment of all forms, simply known as gods and such ideas lead to greater comprehension of form, in other words god.

Its paramount to note that Platos conception of God is too abstract, the philosopher fails to give god attributes because God is neither a thing nor a person, God is an unthinkable entity or state of knowledge which cannot be expressed in words or in any material terms of the ordinary human world.

Conclusion

Gods play a critical role in the world and perspective of Platos philosophy. The perpetual being, demiourgos worker bring into being the world together with other gods. With remarkable lucidity, Plato expresses the role gods play to bring out the reality through creation. On the republic dialogues, the philosopher utilizes deft allegory to depict the world, gods, eternal and natural forms. The philosophers view and expression of god embodies all the Platonic forms, which comprise of good, perfect eternal entities.

When all these forms are put together they exude the essence of god. The role of gods in Platos dialogue can thus be tentatively suggested as manifestation and depiction of complete prudence, and perfection. Gods personify full composition of reality, the truth, justice and the right that Plato seeks to unfound, the concept of gods in Platos philosophy thus culminate the essence of reality and the truth.

References

Crossman, R. H. (1981). Exploring Plato Today. London: Unwin Book Publishers.

De Crescenzo, M. (1992). The Greek Philosophy. (Volume Two) London: Pan.

Eileman, J. L (1985). Understanding The Platonic Philosophy. London: Souvenir Press.

Lycos, J. (1986). Plato on Justice and Power: Reading Book I of Platos Republic. London: Macmillan.

Melling, D. J. (1987). Understanding Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plato. (2007). Republic (Translated by Desmond Lee) Penguin Classic: Paperback.

The parable of the Cave is Platos elucidation of the transformation of the spirit toward enlightenment. He perceives it as what takes place when somebody is educated to the rank of the logician. He argues that they should go back into the cave or go back to the daily globe of politics, voracity and supremacy fights.

Furthermore, the parable molests individuals depending on their minds. The allegory also condemns those who are the captives of the past. The cuffs that truss the hostages are the minds.

The aim of the parable is to attempt to place all the particulars of the cave to an individuals understanding. Conversely, the parable tries to inquire about the things that guards carry with them. Is it the fire, the struggle out of the cave, the sunlight or the shadows on the cave wall?

Some years later, after the parable had been released, Socrates in Book VII of The Republic informed us that the parable meant our humanity and the fire was our sun. He believed that the conduit of the captive was our spirits ascent to acquaintance or civilization.

He compared our humanity of vision with the philosophers world of belief. However, the two are below our understanding and knowledge. The power of sight permits us to see objects that are not actual for instance corresponding lines and ideal rings.

He describes this as advanced comprehension of the humanity that is, abstract Reality or the logical world. He associates this theoretical realism with the comprehension that comes from logic and lastly understanding.

The second thought in this metaphor of the Cave explains how many individuals are ensnared in their own small world, unaware of what is actually happening around them. The narrative mainly consists of five sections, including the shadow, the fire, the common person, the ascending man, and the descending man.

The fourth section talks about the ascent. In case an individual manages to come out of the cave that harbours the ordinary person, he or she feels enlightened. Once the person is out, he or she lastly appreciates the varieties of life and happens to be entirely cultured.

He distinguishes that the darkness simply implied the truth of realism. The fire can offer an individual with a blurred thought of what the realism of objects are, but until he or she comes out of it, then he or she could simply witness the shadow of realism.