Speaker 1: You see, some things are going to happen. What's going
Speaker 1: to happen? What Plato of Athens stands is one of
Speaker 1: the most influential figures in Western philosophy. A student of
Speaker 1: Socrates and teacher of Aristotle, Plato wrote a unique dialogue
Speaker 1: form that blends drama with profound inquiry. His work span ethics,
Speaker 1: political philosophy, psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics. Through vivid characters, often Socrates,
Speaker 1: and imaginative stories are myths Plato explored and during questions
Speaker 1: about justice, reality, knowledge, love, the soul, and the ideal society.
Speaker 1: This episode delves into Plato's major dialogues and philosophical ideas,
Speaker 1: from the historical trials of Socrates to the visionary theory
Speaker 1: of forms and the famous allegory of the Cave, and
Speaker 1: drawing on scholarly insights to enrich our understanding. We have
Speaker 1: journey through Plato's life and times, and now we will
Speaker 1: examine the key themes of his early, middle and late
Speaker 1: dialogues and discover how his blend of dramatic dialogue and
Speaker 1: philosophical exploration created a living legacy that still shapes thought today.
Speaker 1: His real name was Aristocles, but he became known as Plato,
Speaker 1: perhaps a nickname referring to his broad physique or broad forehead.
Speaker 1: Growing up during the Peloponnesian War, the young Plato witnessed
Speaker 1: the political instability of Athens. In his twenties, Plato became
Speaker 1: a devoted student of the philosopher Socrates, whose method of
Speaker 1: questioning everything left a deep mark on him. Socrates' charismatic
Speaker 1: quest for truth and his martyr like death were defining influences.
Speaker 1: Thirty ninety nine BCE, the Athenian democracy tried and executed
Speaker 1: Socrates for impiety and corrupting the youth. Plato, then about
Speaker 1: twenty eight, was profoundly affected by the loss of his
Speaker 1: mentor the apology. Plato's earliest dialogue is actually an account
Speaker 1: of Socrates's defense speech at the trial, and through it
Speaker 1: Plato ensures Socrates's voice and ideals would live on. After
Speaker 1: Socrates' death, Plato withdrew from Athens for a time, traveling
Speaker 1: perhaps to Megara Sirene in North Africa, Italy, and Egypt.
Speaker 1: These travels exposed him to other philosophies, such as Pythagoreans
Speaker 1: in Italy, that would inform his later work. Around three
Speaker 1: eighty seven BCE, Plato returned to Athens and founded the Academy,
Speaker 1: often considered the first university. The Academy was an institution
Speaker 1: for higher learning situated in a grove of olo trees
Speaker 1: sacred to the hero Academus, just outside Athens. There, Plato
Speaker 1: taught and engaged students in dialogue for decades. Among the
Speaker 1: Academy's most illustrious students was Aristotle, who studied there for
Speaker 1: twenty years. The Academy became Plato's home base for the
Speaker 1: rest of his life. Plato also made at least two
Speaker 1: more trips to Sicily in hopes of guiding Syracusan tyrants
Speaker 1: Dionysius the Elder and the Younger in his life. Later years,
Speaker 1: Plato concentrated on teaching and writing at the Academy until
Speaker 1: his death in three forty seven BCE. Understanding Plato's historical
Speaker 1: contexts enriches our appreciation of his dialogues. He lived through
Speaker 1: the decline of Athenian democracy and the rise of Macedonian power,
Speaker 1: through war and civil strife, through the trial of Socrates
Speaker 1: and its aftermen. These experiences gave Plato a first hand
Speaker 1: view of political instability and moral uncertainty, fueling his desire
Speaker 1: to fine unshakable truths and better ways to order society.
Speaker 1: The figure of Socrates, questioning ironic, unyielding in his pursuit
Speaker 1: of virtue dominates Plato's early works and remains a touchstone throughout.
Speaker 1: In his sense, Plato's philosophy can be seen as his
Speaker 1: attempt to preserve Socrates's spirit while also moving beyond Socratic
Speaker 1: skepticism to construct a positive philosophical system. To achieve this,
Speaker 1: Plato wrote in an inventive dialogue form that invites the
Speaker 1: reader into the debate. Before diving into the content of
Speaker 1: the dialogues, let us briefly consider the distinctive method of
Speaker 1: philosophical writing. Nearly all the Plato's surviving works are written
Speaker 1: as dialogues conversations between characters, often historical figures, probing philosophical questions,
Speaker 1: rather than writing treaties or lectures. Plato presents philosophy in
Speaker 1: a dramatic format, complete with settings and characters, which gives
Speaker 1: his work a rich literary texture. We meet Socrates debating
Speaker 1: in an Athenian marketplace, or conversing at a drinking party,
Speaker 1: or talking quietly in prison before his death. These dialogues
Speaker 1: are not plays meant for the stage, but they are
Speaker 1: carefully crafted dramas of ideas. Plato's gift for vivid characterization
Speaker 1: in setting a jubilant symposium, a gymnasium, the courtroom, or
Speaker 1: the shadows of a cave, makes abstract ideas come alive
Speaker 1: as human experience. Socrates is the central figure of most dialogues.
Speaker 1: He is present in all of them except one, the Laws.
Speaker 1: Through Socrates, Plato honors his mentor's legacy, but also uses
Speaker 1: him as a mouthpiece for exploring Plato's own ideas. Importantly,
Speaker 1: Plato never speaks in his own voice in the dialogues.
Speaker 1: There is no professor Plato explaining his doctrine. Instead, he
Speaker 1: lets arguments unfold through questions and answers, the Socratic method
Speaker 1: of inquiry. Socrates or another lead character poses questions to others,
Speaker 1: refutes floida, answers, and gradually guides the discussion towards deeper understanding.
Speaker 1: This method showcases philosophy as a live process of questioning assumptions.
Speaker 1: It also means Plato's works often don't present doctrines neatly,
Speaker 1: but rather lead readers to think for themselves. As the
Speaker 1: Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy notes Plato is far more exploratory, incompletely systematic, elusive,
Speaker 1: and playful than philosophers like Aristotle or cant He does
Speaker 1: not hand us a finalized system of thought. Instead, many
Speaker 1: dialogues end inconclusively or even with more puzzles. Plato seems
Speaker 1: to want the reader to participate in the inquiry. Readers
Speaker 1: of a Platonic dialogue are drawn into thinking for themselves
Speaker 1: about the issues raised, provoking a sense of philosophy as
Speaker 1: a living and unfinished subject to which they must contribute.
Speaker 1: This open ended dialectical style is deliberate. Plato orphan raises
Speaker 1: profound questions what is virtue? What is justice? Is the
Speaker 1: soul of mortal and examines them from multiple sides, without
Speaker 1: always reaching a final answer. In u Thipro, Socrates in
Speaker 1: a priest struggle to define piety and end in perplexity.
Speaker 1: In Theotitis, Socrates and a young mathematician explore what is
Speaker 1: knowledge and consider then critique definitions like knowledge is sense
Speaker 1: perception or knowledge is true belief, with an account ultimately
Speaker 1: concluding they have not yet found a satisfactory definition. Imparmenides
Speaker 1: and Elder philosopher Parmenides subjects young Socrates theory or forms
Speaker 1: to relentless criticism, raising problems of infinite regress and logical
Speaker 1: contradiction that are left unresolved rather than weaken the dialogue.
Speaker 1: These unanswered puzzles are the point Plato is teaching us
Speaker 1: to think, not merely telling us what to think. As
Speaker 1: one skyt Dollar observes, Plato's work gives us a few
Speaker 1: key ideas, along with a series of suggestions and problems
Speaker 1: about how those ideas are to be interrogated, leaving further
Speaker 1: work for the readers themselves. This dynamic quality is why
Speaker 1: Plato is often considered the ideal introduction to philosophy. The
Speaker 1: dialogues don't just preset doctrines, they demonstrate the activity of
Speaker 1: philosophical inquiry. Despite the variety in topics and tones across
Speaker 1: Plato's dialogues, it is common to divide them into three
Speaker 1: broad groups, Early, Middle, and late dialogues. These early dialogues
Speaker 1: are closest to the historical Socrates in style and focus
Speaker 1: mainly on ethical questions, often ending without a firm conclusion.
Speaker 1: The middle dialogues mark the development of Plato's own philosophical theories.
Speaker 1: Here we see the introduction of his theia forms, discussions
Speaker 1: of the soul's immortality, the nature of knowledge, love, and
Speaker 1: the ideal state. These works still feature Socrates as a protagonist,
Speaker 1: but are generally thought to convey Plato's views more than Socrates. Finally,
Speaker 1: the late dialogues are more technical and often involve new
Speaker 1: characters or a diminished role for Socrates. In the late period,
Speaker 1: Plato revisits and sometimes revises ideas from the Middle period.
Speaker 1: For example, Parmenides critically examines the form theory, Sophas and
Speaker 1: Statesmen introduce an iliatic stranger as the main interlocator instead
Speaker 1: of Socrates, and Laws presents a practical political philosophy without
Speaker 1: Socrates at all. With this orientation to Plato's method and
Speaker 1: the rough chronology of his works, we can now explore
Speaker 1: some of his major dialogues and ideas in more depth.
Speaker 1: We will proceed loosely in chronological order of the dialogues,
Speaker 1: beginning with those that center in Socrates' trial and teachings,
Speaker 1: moving through the middle dialogues or Plato's distinctive doctrines emerge,
Speaker 1: and ending with the later works. We will proceed loosely
Speaker 1: in chronological order of the dialogues, beginning with those that
Speaker 1: center on Socrates' trial in Teachings, moving through the middle
Speaker 1: dialogues where Plato's distinctive doctrines emerge, and ending with the
Speaker 1: later works. Plato's earliest dialogues depict the final days of
Speaker 1: Socrates and introduced core Socratic pres snciples of ethics. The
Speaker 1: Apology of Socrates is not an apology in the modern sense,
Speaker 1: but an apologia, a defense speech. Plato presents Socrates at
Speaker 1: age seventy, standing before the five hundred and one man
Speaker 1: Athenian jury in three ninety nine BCE to answer charges
Speaker 1: of impiety and corrupting the youth. The scene is historic,
Speaker 1: and Plato likely witnessed it in person. In the dialogue,
Speaker 1: Socrates delivers an unyielding defense of his life, devoted to
Speaker 1: questioning in virtue. He famously compares himself to a gadfly
Speaker 1: stinging the lazy horse of Athens, trying to rouse the
Speaker 1: city to self examination. He recounts how his friend Caaphon
Speaker 1: asked the Delphic oracle if anyone was wiser than Socrates,
Speaker 1: and the oracle replied, no one was wiser. Socrates interpreted
Speaker 1: this as a divine mission. He was only wise in
Speaker 1: so far as he knew that he knew nothing, whereas
Speaker 1: others falsely believed themselves wise. Thus he went about examining politicians, poets,
Speaker 1: and craftsmen, exposing their ignorance, which earned him powerful enemies.
Speaker 1: In the Apology, Plato's Socrates definally refuses to give up philosophizing,
Speaker 1: even if it means death. I owe a greater obedience
Speaker 1: to God than to you, Socrates tells the jurors, insisting
Speaker 1: he will continue to question anyone he meets about virtue
Speaker 1: and truth. He admonishes the court that killing him will
Speaker 1: harm Athens more than it harms him, for you will
Speaker 1: not easily find anyone to take my place in urging
Speaker 1: the city toward goodness. Socrates even rejects the usual emotional
Speaker 1: appeals for mercy, refusing to parade his family in court
Speaker 1: or weep for pity. Such tactics, he implies, would betray
Speaker 1: his principles. Ultimately, the jury convicts Socrates by a narrow
Speaker 1: vote and sentences him to death. Socrates accepts the verdict
Speaker 1: with equanimity. In a parting shot, he tells the jurors
Speaker 1: that nothing can harm a good man, either in life
Speaker 1: or after death, and that his own pursuit of virtue
Speaker 1: means even death cannot truly hurt him. One of the
Speaker 1: most iconic moments in apologies when Socrates declares that if
Speaker 1: they offered to acquit him on the condition that he
Speaker 1: ceases philosophizing, he would decline, for the unexamined life is
Speaker 1: not worth living for a human being, as he puts it,
Speaker 1: to let no day pass without discussing goodness and all
Speaker 1: the other subjects is really the very best thing that
Speaker 1: a man can do, and that life without this sort
Speaker 1: of examination is not worth living. This ringing statement, the
Speaker 1: unexamined life is not worth living, has echoed through history
Speaker 1: as a cult to reflection and critical thinking. Plato's apology,
Speaker 1: though essentially a monologue, sets the stage for the themes
Speaker 1: of moral integrity, to quest for truth, and the tension
Speaker 1: between the philosopher and society. Two other early dialogues, Euthipro
Speaker 1: and Creto, complement the apology by showing Socrates' attitude before
Speaker 1: and after the trial. In Euthyphro, set just before Socrates
Speaker 1: is hearing, Socrates encounts as a zealously religious man, Euthipro,
Speaker 1: and they debate the nature of piety holiness. Socrates, about
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted for impiety, playfully yet seriously questions you Thidro,
Speaker 1: who claims to know the will of the gods. They
Speaker 1: examine whether something is pious because the gods love it,
Speaker 1: or do the god's love it because it is pious,
Speaker 1: a question that introduces a classic dilemma about the grounding
Speaker 1: of morality. The dialogue ends without a clear answer when
Speaker 1: it demonstrates Socrates's method of probing definition and reveals the
Speaker 1: difficulty of pinning down moral concepts. Eutherfro leaves the reader
Speaker 1: with a sharpened sense of the question rather than a solution,
Speaker 1: which is characteristic of the early Socratic dialogues. After the trial,
Speaker 1: Siicro takes us to Socrates's prison cell as he awaits execution.
Speaker 1: His old friend Grido arrives at dawn, offering a plan
Speaker 1: to smuggle Socrates out to safety. Here, Plato dramatizes a
Speaker 1: stork moral choice. Should Socrates break the law and escape
Speaker 1: to save his life, or accept illegal judgment even if
Speaker 1: it was unjust. Credo implores Socrates to flee for the
Speaker 1: sake of his children and his friend's reputations. They don't
Speaker 1: want to be seen as not trying to save him. Socrates, however,
Speaker 1: engages Creto on a dialogue about justice. Would it be
Speaker 1: right to repay injustice with another injustice? Socrates concludes it
Speaker 1: would not. He personifies the laws of Athens in a
Speaker 1: speech sometimes called the Speech of the Laws, where they
Speaker 1: argue that Socrates, by choosing to live in Athens, agreed
Speaker 1: to abide by its laws, and that escaping would harm
Speaker 1: the city's legal order. One must obey that commands of
Speaker 1: one city and country, Socrates says, an essence, even if
Speaker 1: the city ers in one's individual case. In the end,
Speaker 1: Socrates remains in prison, choosing fidelity to the law in
Speaker 1: his Principles over Life. Creto thus highlights Socrates's integrity. He
Speaker 1: will not compromise his ethics for convenience, reinforcing the image
Speaker 1: of Socrates as a martyr for the rule of law
Speaker 1: and philosophy. Together, Apology, Euthyphro and Creto paint a compelling
Speaker 1: portrait of Socrates, a man guided by conscious and reason,
Speaker 1: fearless in the face of death, committed to seeking virtue
Speaker 1: above all else. These works also set up many of
Speaker 1: the big questions Plato will tackle more abst exactly later,
Speaker 1: What is justice? What is piety? How should a person live?
Speaker 1: They provide the dramatic and moral backdrop of Plato's subsequent explorations. Notably,
Speaker 1: these earlier dialogues do not introduce Plato's own metaphysical doctrines.
Speaker 1: There is no talk of forms or an apholyte or
Speaker 1: cosmology yet, except in passing. That changes with the dialogues
Speaker 1: that Plato wrote in the next phase, which begin to
Speaker 1: venture beyond Socratic ethics into deeper philosophical words. An important
Speaker 1: transitional dialogue is the Meno, which bridges Socratic ethics in
Speaker 1: Plato's emerging ideas on knowledge. Meno begins with a straightforward
Speaker 1: Socratic question, can virtue be taught? Meno, a young aristocrat
Speaker 1: first ask Socrates whether virtue urete excellence is teachable, But
Speaker 1: quickly the discussion shifts to a more basic puzzle, what
Speaker 1: is virtue? Socrates insist they must define virtue before deciding
Speaker 1: how it's acquired. Meno proposes a few definitions. Virtue for
Speaker 1: a man is managing public affairs well, for a woman
Speaker 1: managing the home well, and et cetera. But Socrates refutes them,
Speaker 1: seeking a single definition that covers all virtues. Meno grows
Speaker 1: frustrated and compares Socrates to a torpedo fish that numbs
Speaker 1: whoever comes near. He feels paralyzed and unable to answer.
Speaker 1: This leads to Meno's paradox, how can you search for
Speaker 1: knowledge of something when you don't know what it is?
Speaker 1: If you know it, you don't need to search. If
Speaker 1: you don't know it, you wouldn't recognize it even if
Speaker 1: you found it. Socrates responds with a bold idea that
Speaker 1: becomes a cornerstone of Platonic thought, the theory of recollection.
Speaker 1: He suggests that the soul is immortal and has learned
Speaker 1: all things in past lives, so what we call learning
Speaker 1: is merely recollecting what the soul already knows at some
Speaker 1: deeper level. To demonstrate, Socrates famously calls over an enslaved boy, and,
Speaker 1: through questioning alone without giving answers, leads the boy to
Speaker 1: work out a geometry problem doubling the area of a square.
Speaker 1: The boy, who has no formal education, eventually arise at
Speaker 1: the correct solution, which Socrates takes as evidence that this
Speaker 1: knowledge was latent in him all along. This implies that
Speaker 1: true knowledge is innate and awakening it requires proper questioning.
Speaker 1: In Meno, this idea is still presented as a hypothesis
Speaker 1: linked to a mythic account of reincarnation, but it marks
Speaker 1: the first appearance of Plato's belief in an eternal soul
Speaker 1: and in a reality of knowledge beyond the empirical world,
Speaker 1: notions that will be fully developed soon to the question
Speaker 1: can virtue be taught? Meno ends somewhat ambiguously. Socrates and
Speaker 1: Meno reach a provisional conclusion that virtue comes not from teaching,
Speaker 1: since no one can point to a reliable teacher of virtue,
Speaker 1: nor simply from nature, but perhaps by a sort of
Speaker 1: divine gift or inspiration. The dialogue thus leaves us with
Speaker 1: a tantalizing suggestion that virtue ultimately requires right opinion granted
Speaker 1: by the gods, or, as Plato might later frame it,
Speaker 1: knowledge of the good itself, but it stops short of
Speaker 1: articulating the full theory. In essence, Meno poses the problems
Speaker 1: that Plato's later philosophy will answer. It asks about the
Speaker 1: nature of virtue and knowledge, and hints that answers lie
Speaker 1: in understanding the immortal soul and its knowledge of eternal truths.
Speaker 1: These themes come into Frutition and Fido. One of Plato's
Speaker 1: richest and most revere dialogues, Fido is set on the
Speaker 1: final day of socrates life. A Socrates sits in his
Speaker 1: prison cell in the company of friends, calmly awaiting the
Speaker 1: poison hemlock Fido. A young fellower recounts the scene to
Speaker 1: others afterwards, lending the dialogue a poignant narrative frame. Fido
Speaker 1: is both a character and the narrator of the story.
Speaker 1: This dialogue combines dramatic power the depiction of Socrates's last
Speaker 1: hours with profound philosophical argument. It is in Fido that
Speaker 1: Plato first lays out his own metaphysical and epistemological doctrines
Speaker 1: in a clear way, so much so the ancient commentators
Speaker 1: nicknamed the Dialogue on the Soul. The Fido covers three
Speaker 1: main topics, the immortality of the soul, the theory of
Speaker 1: recollection further developed from Meno, and most importantly, the theory
Speaker 1: of forms. Plato's most famous contribution to philosophy, presented here
Speaker 1: arguably for the first time dramatic context, is that Socrates's
Speaker 1: friends saddened by his impending death, ask him why he
Speaker 1: seems unafraid. This prompt Socrates to explain why a true
Speaker 1: philosopher should not fear death. He argues that philosophy is
Speaker 1: essentially a preparation for dying, because it involves separating the
Speaker 1: soul as much as possible from the bodily, desires and
Speaker 1: senses in order to attain knowledge of eternal truths. The soul,
Speaker 1: Socrates claims, is immortal, and death is merely the soul's
Speaker 1: separation from the body. To this support, he offers four
Speaker 1: arguments for the soul's immortality. One the cyclical argument. Opposites
Speaker 1: come from opposites, so life must come from death as
Speaker 1: death comes from life, implying an endless cycle. To the
Speaker 1: theory of recollection, learning is re collecting eternal truths, which
Speaker 1: suggests the soul existed before birth to acquire that knowledge.
Speaker 1: Three the affinity argument. The soul is invisible, non composite,
Speaker 1: and divine like the forms, so it naturally survives the
Speaker 1: death of the body. And later four the final argument,
Speaker 1: drawing on the form of life, the soul always brings
Speaker 1: life and thus cannot admit death. In the course of
Speaker 1: these arguments, Plato introduces forms explicitly. For example, he speaks
Speaker 1: of the equal itself, the beautiful itself, to just itself,
Speaker 1: abstract ideals that are grasped not by the senses but
Speaker 1: by the mind. At one point, Socrates asks, how do
Speaker 1: we even form the concept of perfect equality? We've never
Speaker 1: seen two sticks or stones that are exactly equal in
Speaker 1: length or quality. Yet we have an idea of equal
Speaker 1: itself that he says came from before birth, when our
Speaker 1: souls beheld the pure form of equal, and we recall
Speaker 1: it when we encounter approximate equalities in life. Early he
Speaker 1: suggests we recognize the grease of beauty or justice by
Speaker 1: comparing them to the perfect form of beauty or form
Speaker 1: of justice our soul once new. This is Plato's theory
Speaker 1: of forms, emerging the idea that beyond the imperfect world
Speaker 1: of changeable things we perceive, there is a higher, unchanging reality,
Speaker 1: a realm of forms or ideas ETOs in Greek, which
Speaker 1: are the perfect archetypes of all properties and values. The
Speaker 1: physical world we know through the senses is only an
Speaker 1: imitation of the pure, eternal and unchanging world of the forms.
Speaker 1: The forms are more real than the objects we see.
Speaker 1: They are invisible, eternal, and intelligible, known by the intellect,
Speaker 1: not the eyes. In Fito, this theory is woven into
Speaker 1: the discussion of the soul's immortality. The soul, being akin
Speaker 1: to the divine forms, can know them, end like them,
Speaker 1: is not destroyed when the body perishes. The foto is
Speaker 1: thus a milestone. It gives us Plato's metaphysics forms. In
Speaker 1: Plato's epistemology, learning as recollection of forms is one narrative,
Speaker 1: it also doesn't shy from objections. Plato has two interlocutors,
Speaker 1: Samias and Sebes, raised thoughtful challenges. For example, Sema suggests
Speaker 1: maybe the soul is like the harmony of a liar,
Speaker 1: a beautiful result of the parts, but destroyed when the
Speaker 1: instrument is destroyed. Sebes worries that even if the soul
Speaker 1: outlines the body, perhaps it wears out after many reincarnations.
Speaker 1: Socrates answers these, reinforcing the theory that the soul is
Speaker 1: an independent substance that pre exists and outlives the body.
Speaker 1: At the dialogue's climax, Socrates recounts a mythic vision of
Speaker 1: the afterlife. Virtuous souls dwell on earth's surface, or even
Speaker 1: ascend to a pure realm of ideal forms, whereas in
Speaker 1: pure souls are dragged back into bodily life. Finally, Socrates
Speaker 1: calmly drinks the hemlock and bids farewell, telling his grieving
Speaker 1: friends not to weep. His serenity in facing death, sustained
Speaker 1: by the conviction of the soul's immortality, provides a moving conclusion.
Speaker 1: The feto is lablishes several major Platonic ideas, the immortality
Speaker 1: of the soul, the existence of transcendent forms, beauty, justice, equality, good,
Speaker 1: and so on. The notion that true knowledge is of
Speaker 1: these forms and comes from the soul's recollection of them,
Speaker 1: and the view that the philosophical life is a training
Speaker 1: for the soul separation from the body, hence a preparation
Speaker 1: for death. We see Plato here building on Socratic ethics
Speaker 1: care for one's soul through virtue and wisdom and transforming
Speaker 1: it with a grand of the worldly framework. Virtue, for Plato,
Speaker 1: will increasingly mean aligning the soul with the eternal good
Speaker 1: and the order of the forms, rather than merely ethical
Speaker 1: behavior in day to day life. But before we get
Speaker 1: too far into abstraction, Plato will also turn to concrete
Speaker 1: questions of politics and society, most notably in his masterpiece
Speaker 1: The Republic. It is in the Republic that Plato's philosophy
Speaker 1: reaches its fullest scope, tying together is metaphysics, ethics, psychology,
Speaker 1: epistemology and politolitical theory, and giving the world the unforgettable
Speaker 1: Allegory of the Cave. Plato's Republic is a monumental dialogue
Speaker 1: that has been hailed as one of Plato's longest dialogues
Speaker 1: and his magnum opus framed, there's a conversation mainly between
Speaker 1: Socrates and several friends, notably Plato's own brothers. The Republic
Speaker 1: begins with a straightforward question what is justice and is
Speaker 1: the just life happier than the unjust life? But it
Speaker 1: unfolds in a wide ranging exploration of morality, politics, psychology, education,
Speaker 1: and metaphysics across its ten books. The dialogue dramatic setting
Speaker 1: is the house of Cephalis during an all night festival,
Speaker 1: and it starts casually Socrates speaking with the old gentleman
Speaker 1: Cephalis about old age and justice. Soon, however, Socrates finds
Speaker 1: himself challenged by the fiery threast Symmetris, who inserts that
Speaker 1: justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger might
Speaker 1: makes right. Socrates and his interlocators then embark on constructing
Speaker 1: an imaginary ideal city Calipolis, as a way to see
Speaker 1: justice writ large before identifying it in the individual soul.
Speaker 1: This leads Plato to describe his vision of the best
Speaker 1: society and government, one ruled by philosopher kings. In the
Speaker 1: course of the Republic, Plato presents numerous influential ideas, the
Speaker 1: principle of specialization, each person doing the one thing they
Speaker 1: are naturally best suited for, the division of society into
Speaker 1: three classes rulers, auxiliaries or soldiers and producers. The tripartite
Speaker 1: soul theory, reasoned, spirit, and appetite as three parts of
Speaker 1: the individual psyche, mirroring the classes of society. The role
Speaker 1: of education and censorship. The equality of women, at least
Speaker 1: in the guardian classes. The communal life of the guardian,
Speaker 1: with property and even family held in common to avoid
Speaker 1: conflicts of interest, and the degeneration of political systems oligarchy,
Speaker 1: democracy tyranny. Plato does not shy from radical proposals, for example,
Speaker 1: abolishing the traditional family for the guardian class or selecting
Speaker 1: mating festivals by lot, rigged to promote the best offspring.
Speaker 1: These are meant to eliminate factionalism and keep the rulers
Speaker 1: focused on the common good. While these aspects of the
Speaker 1: Republic are fascinating, we will focus on two of its
Speaker 1: most famous contributions, the concept of the philosopher king and
Speaker 1: the allegory of the Cave, which together illustrate Plato's view
Speaker 1: of knowledge, reality, and leadership. By Book five of the Republic,
Speaker 1: Socrates has described a pretty austere utopia led by guardian elites.
Speaker 1: But his friends ask who would ever be fit to
Speaker 1: rule such a city. Socrates answers with his boldest political idea,
Speaker 1: Unless philosophers become kings in the cities, are those whom
Speaker 1: we now call kings and rulers genuinely and adequately philosophize,
Speaker 1: there will be no rest from its ills in the cities.
Speaker 1: In other words, the only way to truly achieve a
Speaker 1: just society is to have philosopher kings rulers who love wisdom,
Speaker 1: know the true forms of justice and good witness, and
Speaker 1: therefore can govern not by opinion our appetite, but by
Speaker 1: knowledge of what is truly best This claim is startling
Speaker 1: to his listeners, and Socrates spends considerable effort explaining who
Speaker 1: the true philosophers are, distinguishing them from sophis or fake intellectuals,
Speaker 1: and why they are uniquely qualified to rule. Philosophers, he says,
Speaker 1: are those who are able to grasp what always is,
Speaker 1: the unchanging realities, the forms, as opposed to ordinary people,
Speaker 1: who grope about in the realm of what comes into
Speaker 1: being and passes away the transient sensory world. To convey
Speaker 1: this difference between knowledge and ignorance, Plato introduces three famous
Speaker 1: analogies in Republic Books six and seven, the Sun, the
Speaker 1: divided Line, and the cave. The form of the good
Speaker 1: is compared to the sun. Just as the sun in
Speaker 1: the visible world illuminates objects and enables sight, so the
Speaker 1: good illuminates the forms and gives truth to the knower.
Speaker 1: The divided line is a visual metaphor that segments reality
Speaker 1: and our awareness of it into four levels. At the lowest,
Speaker 1: imagination shadows, reflections, then belief, physical things, then mathematical reasoning,
Speaker 1: abstract thought, and highest of all, dialectical understanding of the forms,
Speaker 1: culminating in the form of the good. But the most
Speaker 1: vivid and narrative of these is the allegory of the Cave.
Speaker 1: In Book seven of the Republic, Socrates ask Glucon and
Speaker 1: us the readers, to imagine a strange and powerful scene,
Speaker 1: an allegory that has become perhaps the most famous passage
Speaker 1: of all philosophy. The allegory of the cave. Picture and
Speaker 1: underground cave where humans have been imprisoned since childhood, chained
Speaker 1: by the legs and necks so they cannot move or
Speaker 1: turn their heads. They face a wall. Behind them, a
Speaker 1: fire burns. In between the fire and the prisoners runs
Speaker 1: a walkway where others carry objects and puppets. The prisoners
Speaker 1: see only the shadows of these objects cast on the
Speaker 1: wall in front of them. They hear only echoes, the
Speaker 1: voices the people behind them speaking, which they naturally assume
Speaker 1: come from the shadows. Having never known anything else, these
Speaker 1: prisoners take the shadows to be the real things. They're
Speaker 1: like us, Socrates says poignantly, for we too often accept
Speaker 1: the world of our senses as the truth. Now imagine
Speaker 1: one prisoner is freed and compelled to stand up and
Speaker 1: turn around. At first, the firelight hurts his eyes, and
Speaker 1: the shapes he sees the actual objects being carried are confusing.
Speaker 1: He might prefer to turn back to the familiar shadows
Speaker 1: on the wall and believe those are more real. But
Speaker 1: suppose someone drags this prisoner out of the cave into
Speaker 1: the daylight above. Blinded by the sun. At first, he
Speaker 1: gradually acclimates. First he can only see shadows and reflections outside,
Speaker 1: ironically similar to what he saw in the cave. Then
Speaker 1: he sees things like trees, animals, people directly, and finally
Speaker 1: he can even look at the sun itself, realizing it
Speaker 1: is the source of light and life. This liberated prisoner
Speaker 1: undergoes a complete transformation of understanding. He now knows the
Speaker 1: shadows in the cave were mere illusions and that a
Speaker 1: far richer, brighter reality exists outside. Feeling pity for his
Speaker 1: fellow prisoners, he goes back down into the cave to
Speaker 1: free them, but re entering the darkness, he can't see
Speaker 1: well his eyes now used to the sun, and the
Speaker 1: prisoners laugh at him. They think the journey has ruined
Speaker 1: his sight and resist any attempts to be let out.
Speaker 1: In fact, if anyone tried to drag them out, they
Speaker 1: might fight and even kill that person Socrates notes, if
Speaker 1: they could lay hands on the escapee who returned, they
Speaker 1: kill him, a poignant reference to Socrates's own fate at
Speaker 1: the hands of the ignorant. This allegory brilliantly compresses Plato's
Speaker 1: philosophical worldview. The cave represents the world of appearances, the
Speaker 1: realm of ordinary perception and opinion. The shadows on the
Speaker 1: wall are the perceptions of sensory objects, which the unenlightened
Speaker 1: take as the most real things. The difficult descent out
Speaker 1: of the cave symbolizes education, the philosopher's journey from ignorance
Speaker 1: to knowledge. From allusion to reality the outside world, but
Speaker 1: the sun is the realm of true reality, the world
Speaker 1: of forms. The sun rep presents the form of the good,
Speaker 1: the ultimate principle that illuminates all the others. In Plato's theory,
Speaker 1: the good is the highest form that gives truth and
Speaker 1: being to the rest, just as the sun makes visible
Speaker 1: things exist and allows vision. The freed prisoner is the
Speaker 1: philosopher who, through reason and dialect, comes to grasp the
Speaker 1: forms and attain knowledge. The return to the cave represents
Speaker 1: the philosopher's role in society. Having seen the truth, he
Speaker 1: has a duty to help enlighten others, even if they
Speaker 1: are hostile or incredulous. Plato thereby explains why philosophers are
Speaker 1: uniquely suited to rule. They have knowledge of the true realities,
Speaker 1: the forms of justice, goodness, and so on, whereas the
Speaker 1: majority only have opinions based on shadows. However, as he
Speaker 1: acknowledges the difficulty people steeped in ignorance resist enlightenment, they're
Speaker 1: like us, the text says, most of us are prisoners
Speaker 1: of our own limited perspective. The allegory thus carries not
Speaker 1: only epistemological meaning the assent to knowledge, but also a
Speaker 1: moral and political message. It dramatizes the philosopher's compassion and
Speaker 1: responsibility and the society's need for true wisdom, even if
Speaker 1: it doesn't want it. From an academic perspective, the cave
Speaker 1: is often interpreted as an answer to the question why
Speaker 1: study philosophy. It suggests that without philosophy, we are like
Speaker 1: prisioners' mistaking shadows for reality. In other words, without critical
Speaker 1: thinking and the pursuit of truth, we live in ignorance.
Speaker 1: The cave dweller's cognitive trap of ignorance is comfortable, and
Speaker 1: they do not know anything beyond the shadows. As one
Speaker 1: analysis puts it, they even engage in trivial games like
Speaker 1: guessing which shadow comes next, analogous to how people in
Speaker 1: our world might fixate on gossip, or appearances or conspiracies.
Speaker 1: Plato's allegory dramatically illustrates the difference between appearance and reality,
Speaker 1: a core Platonic distinction. The world of senses in the
Speaker 1: cave is a world of mere opinion. It's changing, incomplete,
Speaker 1: and can deceive us. The world of forms outside the
Speaker 1: cave is permanent, fully real, and noble. Through reason. Education
Speaker 1: is the painful, butt rewarding process of turning the soul
Speaker 1: from darkness toward light. A striking moment is when Plato
Speaker 1: notes how the freed prisoner returning is ridiculed or even
Speaker 1: killed by the cave dwellers who think he's crazy. This
Speaker 1: is a thinly veiled reference to Socrates being executed by
Speaker 1: the Athenians who did not understand him. It also shows
Speaker 1: Plato's perhaps elitist viewpoint. The masses are deeply ignorant, though
Speaker 1: not by their own fault entirely, and they might violently
Speaker 1: resist very knowledge that would free them. This justifies in
Speaker 1: Plato's mind why philosophers, reluctant, enlightened leaders should hold power
Speaker 1: even if unpopular. The philosopher kings will know what is
Speaker 1: truly good for the city, having seen the sun the
Speaker 1: good itself. After the cave allegory, the Republic goes on
Speaker 1: to discuss the curriculum that would educate such philosopher rulers,
Speaker 1: including mathematics, dialect, and many years of gradual training. It
Speaker 1: also features a famous critique of art and poetry. Plato
Speaker 1: controversially argues that poets and artists are imitators of mere appearances,
Speaker 1: shadows of shadows, and that their work can corrupt the
Speaker 1: soul by feeding emotions and misrepresenting reality. He even suggests
Speaker 1: banning most of homer and tragic poetry from the ideal city,
Speaker 1: accept hymns to the gods and praises of good men.
Speaker 1: This is one of the earliest examinations of art's moral
Speaker 1: impact and has fueled debates about censorship and aesthetics for millennia. Additionally,
Speaker 1: in the Final Book, Socrates relates the myth of Earth,
Speaker 1: a story of a soldier who dies, visits the afterlife,
Speaker 1: and returns to tell of how souls choose their next lives,
Speaker 1: a kind of moral fable to encourage justice by showing
Speaker 1: rewards and punishments after death. The myth of arr brings
Speaker 1: the dialogue full circle by reinforcing that a just life
Speaker 1: is rewarded in the long run, whereas injustice ultimately leads
Speaker 1: to misery for the soul. In summary, the republic gives
Speaker 1: us Plato's vision of a just society and a just soul. Justice,
Speaker 1: Plato concludes, is when each part performs its proper role.
Speaker 1: In the city, each class does its own work. Rulers
Speaker 1: rule with wisdom, soldiers uphold courage, produces exercise moderation by
Speaker 1: obeying the rulers. And in the individual, each part of
Speaker 1: the soul, reason, spirit, appetite fulfills its function with reason
Speaker 1: and command. The just person is harmonious, with reason guiding
Speaker 1: spiritedness and desire toward good ends, a psychological mirroring of
Speaker 1: the well ordered city. Such an individual will be truly
Speaker 1: happier than the tyrant who is ruled by lust or greed,
Speaker 1: just as a healthy body is better off than a
Speaker 1: diseased one. Plato thus answers the initial question justice is
Speaker 1: worthwhile for its own sake as it aligns one's soul
Speaker 1: with the good. For a general audience, the Republic remains
Speaker 1: compelling because of its mix of concrete social commentary. Some
Speaker 1: see it in early communism or feminism in the mention
Speaker 1: that women can be guardians too, and timeless abstract parables
Speaker 1: like the Cave. Academically, it has generated enormous commentary on
Speaker 1: its political feasibility, on the meaning of the forms and
Speaker 1: the good, on whether Plato's proposal is toldtalitarian or enlightened,
Speaker 1: on the role of education and censorship, and on the
Speaker 1: interpretative question of whether Plato himself endorsed every aspect or
Speaker 1: intended some irony, a debate known as the open question
Speaker 1: of how literally to take the ideal City. What is
Speaker 1: indisputable is that the Republic encapsulates Plato's conviction that philosophical
Speaker 1: wisdom and moral virtues are inseparable and are the only
Speaker 1: solid foundation for a good human life in society. The
Speaker 1: allegory of the Cave stands as enduring testimony to the
Speaker 1: transformative power of philosophy, from ignorance to knowledge, from darkness
Speaker 1: to light, a journey each of us is invited to undertake.
Speaker 1: Even as Plato developed profound metaphysics and political theory. He
Speaker 1: remained deeply interested in human love in the way it
Speaker 1: connects us to higher things. Two Middle period dialogues, The
Speaker 1: Symposium and the Fidris, are devoted to eros love or
Speaker 1: passionate desire, and they offer a fascinating blend of psychology, metaphysics,
Speaker 1: and even theology of love. These works present a more
Speaker 1: poetic and mythic side of Plato's thought, complementing the rigorous
Speaker 1: logic of dialogues like Republic or Feto. In fact, the Syposium,
Speaker 1: set as a banquet conversation, and the Fiedris, set as
Speaker 1: a friendly chat outside the city walls, contains some of
Speaker 1: Plato's most beautiful writing. They also introduce the concept of
Speaker 1: platonic love in its original sense, not just friends as
Speaker 1: pop culture uses the term, but rather a love that
Speaker 1: transcends the physical and aims at the ideal beauty. The
Speaker 1: Symposium takes place at a drinking party attended by Socrates
Speaker 1: and a group of notable Athenians, including the playwright Aristophanes
Speaker 1: and the handsome young tragedian Agathon. The guests agree to
Speaker 1: each give a speech in praise of love Aeros. The
Speaker 1: scenery allows Plato to showcase a variety of views on love. Aristophanes,
Speaker 1: for instance, delivers a humorous yet poignant myth about humans
Speaker 1: originally being double creatures split in half by Zeus, so
Speaker 1: that love is the search for the half, an origin
Speaker 1: of the idea of soulmates. Others offer more conventional praise
Speaker 1: of the god of love. The climax is Socrates's turn.
Speaker 1: Instead of a speech of his own, he recounts the
Speaker 1: teachings of a wise woman, Diatoma of Mantinea. Whether she
Speaker 1: is Plato's frictional invention or based on someone is unclear.
Speaker 1: Diatoma gives a profound teaching on the nature and purpose
Speaker 1: of love, introducing what later commentators call the latter of love.
Speaker 1: According to Diatoma via Socrates, all mortal creatures have an
Speaker 1: impulse to achieve immortality. For animals and humans, one route
Speaker 1: to immortality is biological procreation, having children to carry on
Speaker 1: one's genes or name, But there is a higher kind
Speaker 1: of offspring for humans, the birth of ideas, virtue, and
Speaker 1: creations of the soul, such as art or legislation that
Speaker 1: confer lasting fame. The desire for immortality through the presence
Speaker 1: of good and beautiful Diatoma describes how a young person
Speaker 1: should be guided by love for lower to higher forms
Speaker 1: of beauty in a series of steps. This is the latter.
Speaker 1: At first, one loves the beauty of a particular body.
Speaker 1: Then one realizes that many bodies have similar beauty, so
Speaker 1: one appreciates beauty in all bodies. Next, one comes to
Speaker 1: esteem the beauty of the soul more than the body,
Speaker 1: loving those who are beautiful in character. From there one
Speaker 1: assends to love beautiful activities and laws, seeing beauty and
Speaker 1: customs and institutions than to the beauty of knowledge and ideas. Finally,
Speaker 1: if one is guided correctly, one reaches a vision of
Speaker 1: beauty itself, an eternal, unchanging, pure beauty, not concrete or physical,
Speaker 1: but the very form of beauty. In the Otuma's famous words,
Speaker 1: at the pinnacle of the ascent, the lover suddenly perceives
Speaker 1: something wonderfully beautiful in its nature, the form of beauty itself,
Speaker 1: each ternal, not growing or decaying. The lover realizes that
Speaker 1: all particular beautiful things partake of this form of beauty.
Speaker 1: Platonic love is thus a kind of spiritual arrows that
Speaker 1: begins with physical attraction but is ultimately aimed at the
Speaker 1: form of beauty and the birth of true virtue and
Speaker 1: wisdom in the soul. As the Optimus says, if every
Speaker 1: one gazes on the form of beauty itself, it will
Speaker 1: awaken a marvelous love, and one will want to give
Speaker 1: birth not to fleshly children, but to true virtue and
Speaker 1: become dear to the gods. In short, love is portrayed
Speaker 1: as a ladder of assent to the divine, turning earthly
Speaker 1: desire into a path toward the eternal. The Symposium thus
Speaker 1: presents a philosophy of love where eros is a driving
Speaker 1: force that can be sublimated from physical desire to a
Speaker 1: love of the eternal and the good. It's a deeply
Speaker 1: optimistic view of love's potential. Love is not just a
Speaker 1: feeling or appetite, but a cosmic force that propels us
Speaker 1: towards wisdom and immortality. Symbolically speaking, it's also where noting
Speaker 1: that in the Symposium, Socrates credits a woman, Diatema, as
Speaker 1: his teacher in these matters, which is unique in Plato
Speaker 1: and perhaps a nod to the idea that wisdom can
Speaker 1: come from unexpected sources. The dramatic ending of Symposium is
Speaker 1: also memorable. Alquibad is a brilliant but drunken statesman crisis
Speaker 1: the party and delivers the speech praising and teasing Socrates himself,
Speaker 1: likening Socrates to a salanous figure, ugly on the outside
Speaker 1: but full of godlike images within, and confessing his unrequitive
Speaker 1: love for Socrates. This adds a poignant human touch, showing
Speaker 1: Socrates as an object of erros, but one who sublimates it,
Speaker 1: never succumbing to mere physicality. Platonic love in modern parlance
Speaker 1: meaning non sexual affection has its root in this idea.
Speaker 1: Socrates and Alcibaides have a form of love that is
Speaker 1: not consummated physically, which Socrates claims is because true love
Speaker 1: aims higher than the body. De Fiedris, another dialogue centered
Speaker 1: on love and beauty, complements symposium, but has a different form.
Speaker 1: It features only Socrates in Fidris, a young and Myra
Speaker 1: talking outside the city, and it contains two speeches by
Speaker 1: Socrates on love, one critical one celibratory, as well as
Speaker 1: discussions on rhetoric and writing. The most famous part of
Speaker 1: Fidris is the chariot allegory of the soul. Socrates describes
Speaker 1: the soul as a charioteer driving two horses. One horse
Speaker 1: is noble and good, representing the spirited part of the
Speaker 1: soul that can be guided by reason. The other is
Speaker 1: bad and unruly, representing the appetite part base desires. The
Speaker 1: charioteer is reason. In the mythic vision, the souls of
Speaker 1: the gods have perfect horses and charioteers, and dwell always
Speaker 1: in the realm above the heavens, where they behold the forms,
Speaker 1: and especially the form of beauty. Human souls follow in
Speaker 1: the train of the gods, riding up to glimpse the forms,
Speaker 1: but the bad horse makes it difficult. In this wild metaphor,
Speaker 1: sometimes the soul gets a vision of true beauty, other
Speaker 1: times it struggles. Eventually, souls fall back to Earth and
Speaker 1: are incarnated into bodies, and their experience of having seen
Speaker 1: the forms determines what kind of person they become. Philosophers
Speaker 1: saw more, so they are born with greater insight, others
Speaker 1: so or less, and became people attached to more base pursuits.
Speaker 1: Socrates then links this to love. When a person here
Speaker 1: on earth sees someone with physical beauty, it triggers a
Speaker 1: recollection of the true beauty their soul once saw the
Speaker 1: soul's wings start to sprout in yearning for that higher reality.
Speaker 1: The good horse spirit is restrained, but the bad horse
Speaker 1: passion lunges, leading to inner conflict. If the charioteer reason
Speaker 1: could guide the whole soul to honor and cherish to
Speaker 1: beauty rightly, the lovers will practice philosophical self control and
Speaker 1: sublimate their passion into virtue. If they cannot, they may
Speaker 1: give into desire. But even a relationship that is chase
Speaker 1: can be profoundly loving. Socrates implies the highest form of
Speaker 1: earthly love is a kind of platonic friendship, where two
Speaker 1: souls inspire each other toward the form of beauty and
Speaker 1: the good, rather than merely satiating physical lust. This aligns
Speaker 1: with the symposiums latter, but adds the imagery of the
Speaker 1: soul's ascent and full Plato's idea here is that love
Speaker 1: is a form of divine madness, one of our four
Speaker 1: kinds of divinely inspired madness. He mentions, the others being prophetic, ritual,
Speaker 1: and poetic madness. Love's madness is a gets from the
Speaker 1: gods because it can propel the soul back toward its
Speaker 1: heavenly origin. The Fegis also has an interesting critique of writing.
Speaker 1: Socrates famously recounts the myth of the Egyptian god Toath
Speaker 1: inventing writing, and King Thamas criticizing it because it will
Speaker 1: make people rely on written words rather than their own
Speaker 1: memory and understanding. This often puzzles readers, since we only
Speaker 1: know Socrates through Plato's writing. Is Plato biting the hand
Speaker 1: that feeds him. The deeper point Plato makes is that
Speaker 1: writing is static and can't answer questions or defend itself.
Speaker 1: Live dialect is superior, but ironically, Plato's own dialogues try
Speaker 1: to overcome this by writing in a way that stimulates
Speaker 1: the reader's dialectical engagement, as if a written text could
Speaker 1: be as alive as conversation. From Symposium and Fedris, the
Speaker 1: key philosophical takeaway is Plato's theory of love. Love is
Speaker 1: fundamentally a desire for eternal beauty and goodness, and erotic
Speaker 1: love can be an elevating force if guided by philosophy.
Speaker 1: The notion of platonic love, a love that transcends the
Speaker 1: physical and bond soul together in pursuit of higher things,
Speaker 1: comes straight from these dialogues. They also contribute to Plato's
Speaker 1: understanding of the soul. The soul is immortal, again affirmed
Speaker 1: here as only as an immortal soul could pre exist
Speaker 1: and see the forms and has parts that can conflict.
Speaker 1: The chariot allegory vividly conveys the tension within human nature,
Speaker 1: a theme that resonates with anyone who has felt reason
Speaker 1: and passion at odds. Academically, these dialogues have been analyzed
Speaker 1: for their psychology of love, their treatment of gender, and
Speaker 1: their poetic style. The Symposium, especially with its layered framing,
Speaker 1: invites questions about history versus myth. But historically these works
Speaker 1: have inspired views of love from early Christian thinkers who
Speaker 1: try to merge platonic love with spiritual love of God,
Speaker 1: to Renaissance philosophers and even more modern concepts of romance
Speaker 1: that value the spiritual connection over the physical. In some
Speaker 1: Plato sees Eros as a powerful intermediary between the human
Speaker 1: and the divine. In Symposium, Diatoma calls Eros a great
Speaker 1: damon spirit that is the child of poverty and resource,
Speaker 1: always needy but clever at seeking fulfillment. The image captures
Speaker 1: the human condition. We are not God's, but through love
Speaker 1: we reach out for something more enduring than ourselves. Love
Speaker 1: educates us, in the best case, turning desire into virtue. Thus,
Speaker 1: alongside reason, love is a central pair to as sending
Speaker 1: the latter of knowledge in Plato's philosophy. Plato's late dialogues
Speaker 1: reflect an aging philosopher turning to review and refine his
Speaker 1: earlier ideas, as well to venture into new territory such
Speaker 1: as formal logic, science, and law. These works are generally
Speaker 1: more difficult and were likely written in the last decade
Speaker 1: of Plato's life. While not all can be discussed in
Speaker 1: equal detail, we can highlight a few, the Parmenides, Theotitis, Sophis, Statesman, Timaeus,
Speaker 1: and Laws. In them, Plato shows a willingness to critique
Speaker 1: his own doctrines, especially the theory of forms, and to address
Speaker 1: practical and scientific questions more directly. In Parmenides, Plato daringly
Speaker 1: casts his young hero Socrates in a conversation with the
Speaker 1: venerable eleatic philosopher of Parmenides. The dialogue reads almost like
Speaker 1: Plato debating himself. Parmenides examined Socrates's theory that there are
Speaker 1: forms one over many, and systematically hits it with tough objections.
Speaker 1: For instance, he raises what became known as the third
Speaker 1: man argument against the form of largeness. If large things
Speaker 1: are large by sharing in the form of large, then
Speaker 1: mustn't it deposit another form to account for the largeness
Speaker 1: that the form of large and particularly large things share,
Speaker 1: and so on ad infinitum. He also questions how forms
Speaker 1: which are changeless can relate to changing things, and how
Speaker 1: we can know forms at all if they are in
Speaker 1: a separate realm. Does the human mind have a form
Speaker 1: of mind that touches the others? These puzzles are raised
Speaker 1: and not overly answered by Plato. Indeed, Parmenides ends without
Speaker 1: resolution after Parmenides puts Socrates to a rigorous exercise and
Speaker 1: dialectic considering all consequences of assuming a one or not one.
Speaker 1: The effect of this dialogue is to show that Plato
Speaker 1: was aware of potential logical problems with his own Middle
Speaker 1: Period theories. Scholars still debate whether Plato intended specific solutions
Speaker 1: or was possibly indicating a shift in his thinking. Regardless,
Speaker 1: Parmenides is a treasure troll for understanding the challenges of
Speaker 1: a two world metaphysics and has spurred countless commentaries on
Speaker 1: the forms. The Theotitis is another gem of the late
Speaker 1: period focus on epistemology the theory of knowledge. Socrates meets
Speaker 1: young Theotitis, who would become a noble mathematician, and asks
Speaker 1: what is knowledge? The dialogue examines three answers. Knowledge is perception,
Speaker 1: Knowledge is true belief, knowledge is true belieff with an
Speaker 1: account logos, essentially anticipating the idea of justified true belief.
Speaker 1: Each of these gets refuted or at least found inadequate.
Speaker 1: If knowledge was simply perception, then truth would be entirely subjective.
Speaker 1: Each person's perception is truth for them, which Socrates argues
Speaker 1: is self defeating, because if all opinions are true, then
Speaker 1: the opinion that not all opinions are true must also
Speaker 1: be true, a contradiction if knowledge is true belief. Socrates
Speaker 1: points out that one can have true belief by luck
Speaker 1: or persuasion without actually knowing, Like a juror convinced by
Speaker 1: rhetoric might have a true belief about what happened, but
Speaker 1: we hesitate to say he knows, the addition of an
Speaker 1: account or explanation seems promising. The addition of an account
Speaker 1: or explanation seems promising knowledge has justified true belief, but
Speaker 1: problems arise in defining what counts as an adequate account.
Speaker 1: The dialogue explores an image of trying to distinguish pieces
Speaker 1: of wind drone in one's mind. In the end, Theotitis
Speaker 1: concludes in Apoia without a final definition of knowledge. Yet
Speaker 1: it's an enormously rich dialogue that maps out the field
Speaker 1: of epistemology for future generations. Notably, Plato here does not
Speaker 1: invoke forms of the recollection doctrine overtly. The dialogue stays
Speaker 1: at the level of every day in logical analysis, which
Speaker 1: some interpret as Plato stepping back from his earliest certainty
Speaker 1: about how we know things. Perhaps he's acknowledging the complexity
Speaker 1: of defining knowledge and the role of perception and true
Speaker 1: belief within it. For the modern reader, Theotetis is fascinating
Speaker 1: as an ancient precursor to debates about empiricism, verst rationalism,
Speaker 1: and the nature of justification. Sophists and statesmen, sometimes called politicus,
Speaker 1: are a pair of dialogues where an iliatic stranger takes
Speaker 1: the lead. Socrates is mostly silent, present only as a
Speaker 1: character who listens in sophist. The Stranger and young Theotetis
Speaker 1: try to define a sophist. This leads them into a
Speaker 1: rather technical examination of dialectical method and a venture into ontology.
Speaker 1: The philosophy of being and not being, Plato wrestles with
Speaker 1: the concept of non being to explain how false statements
Speaker 1: are possible. The stranger introduces the theory that that which
Speaker 1: is not in a sense is namely as difference. For example,
Speaker 1: not being does not mean total nothingness, but being other
Speaker 1: than something. Thus, falsehood can be explained as saying something
Speaker 1: is in a way that it is not, like predicating
Speaker 1: something that is different from the truth. This might sound
Speaker 1: of truth, but it's Plato's response to parmenites strict idea
Speaker 1: that one cannot speak or think of what is not,
Speaker 1: since doing so we granted existence. Plato basically invents a
Speaker 1: rudimentary theory of categories or forms of predication here, distinguishing
Speaker 1: between being, saneness, difference, motion, rest the greatest kinds. It's
Speaker 1: a sign of his late interest in logic and language.
Speaker 1: The statesman continues the method of definition, this time trying
Speaker 1: to pin down what a true statesman is, using a
Speaker 1: lengthly analogy of weaving. The Statesman weaves together the fabric
Speaker 1: of society, balance and courage anderation in citizens. While not
Speaker 1: is widely read today, Statesman contains reflection on laws and
Speaker 1: governance that prefigure Law's dialogue. The Timaeus is unique in
Speaker 1: Plato's corpus. It is his foray into cosmology and natural philosophy,
Speaker 1: whereas most dialogues are about ethics or knowledge or love.
Speaker 1: Timaeus gives a grand account of the creation of the universe.
Speaker 1: It is set as a kind of sequel to Republic.
Speaker 1: At one point, Socrates says, yesterday we described the ideal city.
Speaker 1: Now let's hear about the universe, and features a single
Speaker 1: long speech by Timaeus of Locri, a Pythagorean philosopher. In
Speaker 1: this speech, Plato, through Timaeus describes how a divine demiurge
Speaker 1: Cristman God fashioned the cosmos as a living creature with
Speaker 1: a soul by imposing mathematical order on chaotic, pre existing matter.
Speaker 1: The Demiurge is supremely good and wanted everything to be
Speaker 1: as good as possible. Using the eternal forms as blueprints,
Speaker 1: he brings order out of disorder. For example, he creates
Speaker 1: the world's by mixing elements of saneness, difference, and being,
Speaker 1: and he arranges the stars, suns, and planets to create time,
Speaker 1: for time is the moving image of eternity. In Plato's
Speaker 1: famous phrase, the four classical elements earth, air, fire, water
Speaker 1: are explained in terms of regular geometric solids, a striking
Speaker 1: proto scientific idea that matter is composed of tiny triangles
Speaker 1: forming the platonic solids, cubes, tetrahedron, and so on, each
Speaker 1: corresponding to an element. Timaeus even includes an account of
Speaker 1: human anatomy and physiology, attributing various parts of the body
Speaker 1: to the God's christmanship, like the liver as an organ
Speaker 1: of divination, the marrow as seed of generation, and so on.
Speaker 1: Is a bizarre but fascinating mix of scientific reasoning some
Speaker 1: see hints of atomism and embryology and mythic imagination. Importantly,
Speaker 1: Plato makes clear that this cosmology is a likely story,
Speaker 1: meaning it is not to be taken as absolute revelation,
Speaker 1: but as a plausible account given our limited understanding. He
Speaker 1: acknowledges that knowledge of the physical world can only be conjectural,
Speaker 1: since only the forms often certainty. Nonetheless, the Timeeus was
Speaker 1: hugely influential, especially in antiquity in the Middle Ages. As
Speaker 1: one of the few detailed creation accounts in Greek philosophy.
Speaker 1: It even influenced early Christian thinkers for its idea of
Speaker 1: a divine creator imposing order. In the context of Plato's ideas,
Speaker 1: Timaeus reinforces the certainty of the forms and the good.
Speaker 1: The demiurge uses the form of the good as a model,
Speaker 1: and it introduces the notion of necessity verse reason. The
Speaker 1: world is a product of the rational plan of the demiurge,
Speaker 1: but also the necessary laws of the material realm. In
Speaker 1: the context of Plato's ideas, Thimeeus reinforces the centrality of
Speaker 1: the forms and the good. The demiurg uses the form
Speaker 1: of the good as a model, and it introduces the
Speaker 1: notion of necessity verse reason. The world is a product
Speaker 1: of the rational plan of the demiurge, but also the
Speaker 1: necessary laws of the material realm. The demiurge persuades necessity
Speaker 1: to cooperate via shapes and numbers, indicating that the cosmos
Speaker 1: is built by geomet and mathematical principles. The demiurge persuades
Speaker 1: necessity to cooperate via shapes and numbers, indicating that the
Speaker 1: cosmos is built by geometric and mathematical principles. This links
Speaker 1: to the Pythagorean influence on Plato, the belief that mathematical
Speaker 1: order underlies reality. Finally, Plato's Laws is his last and
Speaker 1: longest work, often seen as a more practical follow up
Speaker 1: to Republic. In Laws, Plato abandons the character of Socrates
Speaker 1: entirely instead. The dialogue is a conversation between an unnamed
Speaker 1: Athenian stranger who likely voices Plato's own late views, and
Speaker 1: two old men, a Spartan and a Cretan. As they
Speaker 1: take a long hike on crete, they discuss how to
Speaker 1: found a new colony in what it laws should be.
Speaker 1: The tone is quite different from Republic, more legalistic and detailed.
Speaker 1: Plato seemingly accepts the actual cities will never be run
Speaker 1: by philosopher kings, so Laws outlines the second best state,
Speaker 1: one governed by laws and a mixed constitution. The Athenian
Speaker 1: stranger still aims to shape of versvirtuous citizenry, but through
Speaker 1: rigid laws and social institutions rather than through philosopher rulers.
Speaker 1: Laws covers everything from marriage, education and drinking parties to
Speaker 1: criminal law, economic regulation, and religious rights. It's almost a
Speaker 1: legal code in dialogue form, complete with the reasoning behind
Speaker 1: each ordinance given in the form of preambles to laws.
Speaker 1: In fact. One notable idea is that every law should
Speaker 1: be preceded by a persuasive prelude explaining why the law
Speaker 1: is just and good. Plato thus acknowledges the educative value
Speaker 1: of written law by giving citizens rational explanations. The laws
Speaker 1: themselves teach virtue, not just coerce behavior. This is a
Speaker 1: very platonic touch. Even in laying down rules, he wants
Speaker 1: to appeal to reason and the soul's understanding. Compared to Republic,
Speaker 1: the government described in Laws is more conservative and less idealistic.
Speaker 1: Why this shift, perhaps Plato in old age had become
Speaker 1: more cautious after seeing the failure of the Syracuse experiments
Speaker 1: and the general resistance to philosopher kings. In Laws, he
Speaker 1: explicitly plans a city cold Magnesia, where the rulers are
Speaker 1: not full fledged philosophers. They don't know the forms, but
Speaker 1: are guided by the law in a sort of civic religion.
Speaker 1: There is a nocturnal counsel of senior officials who study
Speaker 1: philosophy in theology by night to keep the city on
Speaker 1: course an interesting compromise. Laws is less frequently read than Republic,
Speaker 1: partly because its dry detail can be tedious, but it
Speaker 1: is invaluable for understanding Plato's late political thought. It shows
Speaker 1: him trying to apply his principles to a real worldish scenario.
Speaker 1: The tone is stern. For instance, Laws advocates for state
Speaker 1: control of education, discourages innovation in music and arts to
Speaker 1: avoid moral decay, and imposes fairly harsh penalties for various crimes.
Speaker 1: It also stands out for being one of the earliest
Speaker 1: treaties to claim the law should rule rather than any individual.
Speaker 1: The rule of law concept something even Republic's philosopher king
Speaker 1: regime didn't emphasize, because the king's knowledge was the law.
Speaker 1: There In Laws, however, Plato writes, if law is the
Speaker 1: master of the government and the government is its slave,
Speaker 1: then the situation is safe and good, implying that no person,
Speaker 1: unless divine, can be trusted with absolute power. This is
Speaker 1: a notable development. One might ask, is Laws of repudiation
Speaker 1: of Republic. Plato seems to say that his ideal in
Speaker 1: Republic was too high for ordinary humans. Laws is a
Speaker 1: pragmatic second best. Indeed, the Athenian stranger in Laws explicitly
Speaker 1: calls it second after the ideal of a truly wise ruler.
Speaker 1: A revealing line is when the Athenian says that in
Speaker 1: the ideal case, where people are perfectly virtuous, no laws
Speaker 1: are needed, but since we don't have divine rulers, we
Speaker 1: must tie them down with laws like puppets guided by
Speaker 1: a divine code. The dialogue ends somewhat abruptly with a
Speaker 1: prayer to the gods to bless the proposed city for academics.
Speaker 1: Laws demonstrates the evolution of Plato's thinking and has been
Speaker 1: studied as an early work in jurisprudence and political theory.
Speaker 1: It contains, for example, the first elaborate discussion of criminal
Speaker 1: law in philosophy. Plato distinguishes types of homicide, intentions and
Speaker 1: so on. It's less idealistic and more empirical, perhaps reflecting
Speaker 1: Plato's gathering of information about how actual Cretan and Spartan
Speaker 1: laws worked in the Lay period. One can sense Plato's
Speaker 1: mind ranging freely over all subjects logic, Imparmenides and sophists,
Speaker 1: physics and cosmology, and Timaeus and practical governance. In Laws.
Speaker 1: He also wrote Philibus, a dialogue about the nature of
Speaker 1: pleasure and the good life, where he ultimately argues that
Speaker 1: neither pure pleasure nor pure intellect is sufficient. The best
Speaker 1: life is a mixture of intelligence and measured pleasures, with
Speaker 1: intellect ruling introducing the idea of a quantitative limit to pleasures.
Speaker 1: And there are the critious fragment about Atlantis and Epidomies
Speaker 1: as a kind of appendix to Laws. Plato's style in
Speaker 1: the late works is often more didactic and less playful
Speaker 1: than in earlier dialogues. Socrates is no LEAs longer the
Speaker 1: only voice of wisdom. Plato is experimenting with different modes
Speaker 1: of exposition, from the youth will portrayal of Socrates and
Speaker 1: apology to the cosmic vision of Timaeus and the legislative
Speaker 1: project of Laws. Plato's dialogues cover an outstanding range, yet
Speaker 1: they form a coherent journey. In each stage of his life,
Speaker 1: Plato sought to illuminate the question how should we live
Speaker 1: in the light of what is ultimately real and good?
Speaker 1: Early on, he set the moral and intellectual stage with
Speaker 1: Socratic questioning. In the middle, he posited a visionary answer
Speaker 1: that we should live guided by the eternal forms by
Speaker 1: the true, the good, the beautiful, and organize our souls
Speaker 1: in societies accordingly. In the Lay period he tested and
Speaker 1: refined these ideas, acknowledging human limitation but still striving for
Speaker 1: the best attainable order. Plato's theories of forms, though criticized
Speaker 1: even in antiquity, remains one of the great strokes of
Speaker 1: philosophical genius. It offers a way to think about universals, ideals,
Speaker 1: and objective values. When we talk today about something being
Speaker 1: ideal or perfect, or when mathematicians speak of perfect circles
Speaker 1: or iffidence sets that no one ever fully sees, we are,
Speaker 1: to some extent speaking platonically. His concept of a reality
Speaker 1: beyond appearances laid groundwork from metaphysics and even theological thinking.
Speaker 1: Plotinus and later Neoplatonists interpreted Plato's form of the good
Speaker 1: as akin to divine principle. Plato's allegory of the cave
Speaker 1: still resonates in any context where people feel stuck in
Speaker 1: ignorance or illusion, whether one applies it to media culture
Speaker 1: like citizens glued to flickering TV shadows in a dark room,
Speaker 1: or the need for education to liberate and enlighten the
Speaker 1: cave allegory has been used to discuss everything from the
Speaker 1: persistence of conspiracy theories, mistaking shadows for reality, to the
Speaker 1: journey of personal growth. In ethics and politics, Plato set
Speaker 1: the terms of debate by insisting that questions of how
Speaker 1: to live must consider the health of the soul and
Speaker 1: the objective good. His distrust of democracy, born from seeing
Speaker 1: it condemned Socrates and Flounder and War, and his idea
Speaker 1: philosopher kings have been hotly debated. Today, we still struggle
Speaker 1: with how to ensure knowledgeable governance. Plato's solution was extreme,
Speaker 1: but his diagnosis of demagogery and ignorant mass opinion seems prescient.
Speaker 1: The Republic's critique of poetry and art as mere imitation
Speaker 1: spurred responses by Aristotle and others, and much later gave
Speaker 1: fada to debates about art's role should our challenge or
Speaker 1: uphold moral truths. Plato took his stance art is suspect
Speaker 1: unless aligned with truth that many disagree with, but grappling
Speaker 1: with his challenge helped define esthetics as a discipline. Plato's
Speaker 1: influence on subsequent philosophy is immeasurable. His student, Aristotle would
Speaker 1: diverge on many points, especially rejecting forms existing apart from things,
Speaker 1: but Aristotle's system is in dialogue with Plato's at every turn.
Speaker 1: In late Antiquity. During the Renaissance, the revival of Plato
Speaker 1: contributed to new ideas about love, like Platonic love as
Speaker 1: understood by Marsilio Ficino and others, and even scientific rationalism
Speaker 1: took some Platonic cues. Galileo and Kepler were fascinated by
Speaker 1: Plato's mathematical view of nature. Kepler described astronomer as leaving
Speaker 1: the cave of Earth to see cosmic order. Academically, Plato's
Speaker 1: dialogues continue to be analyzed line by line. The Stanford
Speaker 1: Encyclopedia notes how exploratory and multi dimensional Plato is, refusing
Speaker 1: to reduce philosophy to a dry system. This is why
Speaker 1: we keep reading him. Each dialogue is not just an argument,
Speaker 1: but a literary drama inviting reinterpretation. For example, is the
Speaker 1: republic primarily about individual morality or utopian politics or both?
Speaker 1: Is the Symposia more about love or about the nature
Speaker 1: of philosophy itself with Socrates as the ultimate beloved. Different
Speaker 1: errors have found new meanings inclosing Perhaps the best way
Speaker 1: to appreciate Plato is to recall the scene at the
Speaker 1: end of Feto. Socrates have given his final teaching on
Speaker 1: the immortality of the soul and the form of life.
Speaker 1: Calmly drinks poison and dies among friends, saying his last
Speaker 1: words a reminder to offer a sacrifice to a Scleppius,
Speaker 1: the god of healing, as if death is a cure
Speaker 1: for the illness of life. Plato was at present. He
Speaker 1: knows Plato was sick that day, but he memorialized his
Speaker 1: teacher with such power that readers for two thousand or
Speaker 1: four hundred years feel they were in that Athenian jail room.
Speaker 1: Plato's writings thus heal in a way they ain't too.
Speaker 1: Cure us of ignorance. By engaging us in dialogue, by
Speaker 1: challenging us to question appearances, those shadows on the wall,
Speaker 1: and ascend towards truth, Plato stimulates the philosophical impulse in
Speaker 1: his audience. In these episodes, we have followed Plato's journey
Speaker 1: from the gadfly and Athens to the visionary in the Academy.
Speaker 1: But the journey he really cares about is the one
Speaker 1: inside each reader's soul. Turning it from darkness to light.
Speaker 1: In that sense, Plato's true academy is not just the
Speaker 1: location in Athens. It is wherever people gather to earnestly
Speaker 1: discuss and seek wisdom, And through his dialogues, that academy
Speaker 1: is still open, inviting us to become lovers of wisdom
Speaker 1: philosophers in our own right. Thank you all for listening,
Speaker 1: and hope you all enjoyed, And tell the next one.