Platonism?

um I'm not now nor have I ever been impressed with Plato and most times regard his "ideas" as the downfall of western civilization.

That's interesting...I'm taking an introductory course in Western Philosophy right now, and we're learning about Platonism. I just wanted some general opinions from a few philosophy "buffs".

Can I ask you what you meant by the "downfall of western civilization"? What do you think of the eastern civilization? (Sorry if I sound annoying, I'm just a first-time student and I'm really curious)

I think dyslexia is exaggerating.

I think so, too. Hellenic civilazion, maybe. But the whole of Western civ? Nahh.

I do think that Plato's framing of human ideas as "mere" reflections of objective master Ideas and Descartes' separation of the mind and body (and by extension self and world) set Western society on a less than fortunate trajectory. Maybe Dys isn't exaggerating. Just think of how Plato and Descartes fed into our present tendencies to reify ideas and our egotistical alienation from experience.

If it wasn't for Plato's academy, Aristotle wouldn't have studied there and became as famous as he was. Actually I don't quite know too much on the history...

BTW, how did Plato set the western world behind?

Ray

The principal problem with Plato is this: as we say that a woman, a sunset, a piece of music is beautiful, "beautiful" is not part of the woman, sunset or music. A woman can be ugly and still be a woman. But, to Plato, beauty is real. So, how can we say that something is beautiful if we do not know what beauty is in itself? To Plato, when we say that something is beautiful we are saying that something participates of the idea of beauty. And since beauty must be real, we must accept that, in another world, the idea of beauty exists in itself.

I disagree because I think the idea of beauty has no real meaning, unless applied to something. But Plato would answer: how can you apply beauty to something - saying that a rose is beautiful - if beauty doesn't exist in itself?
I think this is a problem of definitions. As Wittgenstein showed the definition of a word depends on its use. Something that Plato would never accept.

Dys is right to this extent: it all started with Plato. If not for Plato's influence, we don't know what track mainstream Western philosophical thought would have taken. I'll go further than that -- the whole concept of "philosophy", as we use the word, is due to the way Plato thought and wrote. The word itself simply means "love of knowledge." It was never meant to be confined to specific, rigidly defined studies e.g. metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. At one time that which we call "science" today was known as "natural philosophy."

Plato's contribution to philosophy is that he established the entire school of what today is called -- for lack of a better word -- "idealism." This has little to do with "ideals." but should, more properly, be called "idea-ism." The major principle of Idealism (cap I) is that the world is a collection of ideas or representations (Schopenhauer's vorstellung), rather than concrete things and that, in order to understand it, we must examine these "ideas." Plato maintains that our reason is far more trustworthy than our senses.

It was Plato (or Socrates, if you will) who first introduced the concept of noumena as opposed to phainomena, who first drew a line of demarcation between what he called the real and the actual. For Plato, the world which we perceive through our senses is not the real world. It is simply an "imitation" of the real world, which exists only as noumena, as thought or idea. All the tables in this world, the actual world, are only imperfect "imitations" of the abstract idea of tableness.

As you continue your studies, Boy (say, are you comfortoble in that suitcase?) , you will see how this leads,almost inevitably, to Descartes (cogito ergo sum) and to George Berkeley, by way of Epictetus. The famous philosophical thinkers of Western culture have all, with rare exceptions, been influenced by these dicta of Plato. Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Schleiermacher -- all are direct descendants of Platonic thinking, all make a distinction between what our senses percieve and the ding-an-sich ("the thing in itself"). To a considerable extent, it can even be said that most of Judeo-Christian theology is based on Platonic concepts. St. Augustine, as well as Thomas Aquinas, were Platonists and it is their theological thought which has shaped and formed modern day Christianity.

Does Dyslexia's brief statement make sense to you now? If not, I'll rant and rave some more. I wanna be a Philosopher King!

Plato knew the ultimate truth as it were.

I was not, as it were, exagerating, sitting here milking my cow I an not thinking of the "cowness" producing "milkness". Surely Artistole's acorn will produce a dysmorphic oak but the wise pig shall eat the fruit it produces. JLNobody am I always this obscure?

I'm sure Plato would say that the object imitated cowness which produced a liquid that imitated milkness.

I don't see any 'downfall of western civilization'. Plato raises questions for future philosophers to ponder upon.

and creates a model of "pathology" that has wreaked havoc on all the sciences ever since. you can have your "ideals" and your "forms" I, for one, am not interested. "nature" is what it is and not what some philosopher egotist things it should be, could be, is "meant' to be. All that is is all that is and therein lies its "quality".
If you haven't noticed, I have an attitude that doesn't include Plato/Aristotle or even Jimmy the Greek.

dyslexia

"All that is, is". I agree. And you could go farther and say: "all things are what they are". That is indisputable.
So, according to you, an apple is an apple. Very true.

But, just one more question: what is an apple, besides being an apple? To answer that you need philosohy, or science.

(Sorry, I have heard of Plato or Aristotle ... but who is Jimmy the Greek?)

lol well Jimmy the Greek was a famous (in america) sports wagering analyst.

val. i have no argument with philosophy or science but I continue to question the basis of the derived conclusions of both, (as well I should). Unlike religion, there are no conclusions by leap of faith. The Sunnum Bonum is at your fingertips, not in the heavens.

The interesting thing about that statement, Dys, is that Plato would have agreed with every word of it (as would Socrates). In fact, it was partly for holding views such as yours that Socrates was condemned to death. By questioning everything and urging others to do the same, the Athenian authorities said, he was corrupting the youth of Athens.

well speculation it is then, the ONLY knowledge we have re Socrates is whatever Plato chooses to tell us (or create) however, I must disagree that Plato would agree with me even an iota. Plato was certainly (if nothing else) an elitist when he comes to "understanding" time after time explaining why only the "enlightened" (himself) were capable of "real" knowledge. Plato was certainly into the sunnum bonum arena which I find deplorable in anyone's quest for knowledge or understanding of the world we live in (aristotle was worse) The dialectec pathology/physiology has undermined every science from medicine to ecology ever since.

Andrew, that was an excellent overview. By the way you said to Dys: "In fact, it was partly for holding views such as yours that Socrates was condemned to death." And I used to think Socrates was innocent.

dyslexia

I certainly agree that Plato was a very bad influence to western philosophy, although I like to read his Dialogues.
But I still didn't understand why you think that.
My position has not to do with his idealism but, more than that, with his conception that everything must have a definition, and only one, and all that can have a definition must exist.
What is the "pathology" you mencioned?