Plato (429–347 B.C.E.) is one of the most admired philosophers of this day. His wisdom has outlived his years and still holds ground in western literary tradition. He was an Athenian of high status. His achievements are so significant even now the educated who have devoted themselves to philosophy refer to themselves as Platonists. Plato is often associated with specific doctrines; the focal one being that of the eidos or forms. These are entities which are eternal and changeless and archetypes of the physical structures encountered in the world. From the idea of the eidos, binary opposition is formed. During the binary system two opposing concepts that are related in some way are set against each other. This act can be compared to two terms being separated by a line; one term being above and the other below. All people unconsciously use binary opposition to make sense of all aspects of life. Humans have come to the understanding that in order to make sense of one thing there has to be a comparison made using an opposite. This idea appears within Plato’s “Phaedrus”, the work being questioned in Derrida’s piece.
Pheadrus is a dialogue written by Plato. It is believed to have been composed during 370 BC. Although Plato’s piece analyzes various ideas the one in question here is writing. He explains that writing has one main problem, it lacks a speaker which he refers to as a “father”. He claims that those who read to gain knowledge will actually be gaining a false sense of education. Without someone to question about the provided information, recipients are forced to accept all they have read and interpret it based on their own experiences. This continuous dilution of the information will result in misunderstandings. He also notes ...
... middle of paper ...
...h each other and cannot be isolated upon use. He believes that Pheadrus should not only be studied based upon the words within the piece, but also those that are missing. After making this distinction Derrida introduces the pharmakon’s synonym, “pharmakos” which can be defined as a magician or poisoner. He carries on to provide another definition for the same word, scapegoat. After this connection he includes factual information concerning the Athenian scapegoats. The scapegoats were those the Athenians kept for the use of a sacrifice when any great harm were to befall the city. These people were considered to be outsiders. He relates the sacrifice of these people to the death experienced by Socrates himself calling him a “pharmakos from the inside” (Derrida 134). Socrates’ end came when he was put to death, by his own people, for corrupting the minds of the youth.
Plato's final argument in Phaedo for the immortality of the soul is one of the most interesting topics of all time. It goes hand to hand with the application of the theory of forms to the question of the soul's immortality, as Plato constantly reminds us, the theory of forms is the most certain of all his theories. The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince us of the immortality of the soul by using several main arguments. These include the argument of forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often seem to make large assumptions without any concrete evidence. In this essay I will attempt to expose some flaws in Plato’s argument while showing how the conclusion can still be convincing for some.
Plato. "Phaedrus." The Works of Plato. Trans. B. Jowett. New York: The Dial Press, n.d.
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates encounters Phaedrus who has just come from a conversation with Lysias. Phaedrus invites Socrates to walk with him and hear what he has learned from his conversation with Lysias. The two read and discuss Lysias’ speech, and then enter into a discussion on how one can become an expert in rhetorical speaking and on whether writing is beneficial and acceptable or the contrary. Socrates’ thoughts on the subjects of rhetoric and writing will be the main points of this paper.
...pposition). To continue on in his own project Derrida must rigorously analyze something that is not an inherited assumption, but what seems to be inherent in human thought - the differential nature of the world. If one is really to discard structuralism, it seems imperative to find some way of proving that not only is binary opposition a faulty way of thinking, it is also not necessary to thought.
Plato’s thought has two axes: thematical and formal. Thematically it moves around the Good, and formally, around the dialectic. Both themes are the ground of his whole work and the ideas are not more than the attempt of joining them. The dialectical access to ideas is fully congruous with the question of the Good, at all levels. This is clearly exposed in the beginning of Philebus, (4) where it is necessary to reach the truth about the good through dialogue, with all required efforts. But dialogue is not a combat between enemies to win one position, but the battle between allies supporting the truth.
Through time there have been a number of great philosophers, John Locke, Rene Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, that positively impacted and changed the world’s way of thinking. Plato lived from about 428 BC until 347 BC in which he wrote over twenty six dialogues, including the Apology, Crito, and Euthyphro (Source 2). Socrates introduced ethics, the study of what people should do, instead of analyzing what people do like the other philosophers of that time period (Source 4). Socrates did not believe he was a teacher to anyone, therefore it is said Plato studied with Socrates for about ten years and was not a student of his (Source 2). Due to the fact there is no written record directly from Socrates, what is known about him comes primarily from Plato’s dialogues (Source 4). The Apology is Plato’s account of the dialect Socrates used to defend himself at his indictment trial and conviction.
For Plato, Forms are eternal and changeless, but there is a relationship between these eternal and changeless Forms and particular things we perceive by means of our senses in the world. These particular things change in accordance to the perceiver and the perceiver’s environment and this is why Plato thought that such things do not possess real existence. For Plato, onl...
Plato, Phaedo, In: The Collected Dialogues Of Plato Including The Letters, Editors: E. Hamilton and H. Cairns, Bollingen Series LXXI, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1961.
In The Republic, Plato presents the relationship of the Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave in connection to his epistemology and metaphysics. Throughout the Republic he discusses his beliefs on many topics using examples that express his ideas more thoroughly. He is able to convey very complex beliefs through his examples of the Divided Line and Allegory of the Cave. Plato’s epistemology depicts his idea of the Divided Line which is a hierarchy where we discover how one obtains knowledge and the Allegory of the Cave relates to Plato’s metaphysics by representing how one is ignorant/blinded at the lowest level but as they move up in the Divided Line, they are able to reach enlightenment through the knowledge of the truth.
. . . In his growing strength Oedipus begins to act as the ritual scapegoat, the pharmakos, the figure who is ritually laden with all the evils and impurities of the community and then expelled to purify it. . . . Oedipus has separated himself from the monstruous, polluted self that had been hidden within him for so long (141).
With these rejected definitions in mind, Plato’s theory of knowledge, one that is grounded in idealism , calls for the separation of form and matter as well the existence of two worlds: the world of appearances and the world of intelligibly. The Platonic theory of knowledge states that knowledge is achieved through the ascension of, what Plato calls, the Plateaus of Kno...
If we consider Plato’s ideas abstractions, we shall never grasp his meaning. But if we think of how a great artist sometimes manages to catch the vital meaning of an event on his canvas, we are coming closer to Plato’s theory. Take another example, how many of us have known someone for years when, suddenly, when one day something happens, and we see him for the first time as a “real person.” His personality has become alive and full of meaning in a way, which has nothing to do with his appearance or his attitude. Our two minds seem to look directly at one another. We feel we have a real contact with that person.
Still other dualists hold not that intellect and body are unmistakable ontologically, but our mentalistic lexicon cannot be diminished to a physicalistic lexicon. In this sort of dualism, intellect and body are conceptually particular, in spite of the fact that the marvels alluded to by mentalistic and physicalistic wording are coextensive. The taking after areas to begin with talk about dualism as elucidated by two of its essential shields, Plato and Descartes. This is taken after by extra contentions for and against dualism, with extraordinary accentuation on substance dualism, the verifiably most imperative and powerful adaptation of dualism. The essential source for Plato's sees on the supernatural status of the soul is the Phaedo, set on the last day of Socrates' life some time recently his self-administered execution. Plato (through the mouth of Socrates, his sensational persona) compares the body to a jail in which the soul is kept. While detained, the intellect is compelled to examine the truth by implies of the body and is unable (or extremely prevented) of obtaining information of the most elevated, unceasing, constant, and non-perceptible objects of information, the Shapes. Shapes are universals and speak to the substances of sensible
There were many important greek philosophers. They all said something that is still known today. Some of these ideas are still accepted today as true. Three of these important philosophers are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They have all said something that is still accepted in modern society.
To Live as A Monster or Die as A Good Man: An analysis of Plato’s Theory of Forms