Plato and Socrates: Differences in Personal Philosophy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

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.

Click Here To Order Now!

Plato and Socrates: Differences in Personal Philosophy

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)