The Source of Plato's Opinions

(Originally Written July 8, 2006 in Book 4)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 13 - The Source of Plato's Opinions

Plato & Aristotle were the most influential philosophers of all time.

Plato surpasses Aristotle in subsequent ages for two reasons:
1) Aristotle is a product of Plato
2) Plato was more influential in Christian theology and philosophy in its formative years (until the 13th century)

Plato's most important matters are:
1) Utopia
2) Theory of Ideas
3) Arguments in favor of immortality
4) Cosmology
5) Conception of knowledge as reminiscence rather than perception

Plato was born in 428-7 B.C. as a well off aristocrat. He was young when Athens was defeated in the Peloponnesian War. He hated democracy (because of his aristocratic status). He was a pupil of Socrates.

Plato is easy to respect, but hard to understand.

He was influenced by Spartan culture, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Socrates.

Pythagoras influenced Plato on his Orphic elements, religious tone, immortality beliefs, the cave example, other worldliness, mathematical insights and integration of mysticism and intellect.

"From Parmenides he derived the belief that reality is eternal and timeless, and that on logical grounds, all change must be illusory" (Russell, 105).

Heraclitus taught him that there is nothing permanent in the sensible world.

He believed that knowledge is not derived from the senses (from Heraclitus and Parmenides).

Socrates influenced Plato in his preoccupation with ethical concerns and a tendency to seek teleological explanations rather than mechanical ones.

'The Good' is also derivative of Socrates' teachings.

His philosophical backgrounds fit in to his authoritarianism political view because:
1) Since Goodness and Reality are timeless, an authoritarian government minimizes change and maximizes a chance for static perfection.
2) An authoritarian government can only accomplish this static perfection if the rulers are preoccupied with 'The Good'. Those rulers would not corrupt the government.
3) Education is pivotal to this process. Without it, the whole system would fail.
4) Leisure was essential to wisdom for Plato. An authoritarian government provided leisure to men of means. With leisure comes the pursuit of wisdom.

Two general questions arise in confronting Plato with modern ideas. The first is: Is there such a thing as 'wisdom'? The second is: Granted that there is such a thing, can any constitution be devised that will give it political power?

Plato's view of wisdom (Russell's opinion) was knowledge of the good and knowing what is good enacts doing what is right.

Modern thought believes compromise essential to political theory because there is not enough power in the common interests of all mankind to build a political theory on. Plato's version will never work with this many sovereign states.

Another problem with Plato's theory is who is considered wise and by what standards. Forming a collection of wise men is an insolvable problem. This is the ultimate reason for democracy.

Side note - "It is clear that majorities, like general councils may err, and in fact have erred. Aristocracies are not always wise; kings are often foolish; Popes, in spite of infallibility, have committed grievous errors" (Russell, 107).

Linehan - Despite the validity of this statement the language use is stronger and more harsh towards religious figures. It could be that as religion demands a higher standard for its officials more scrutiny is demanded in regards to their performance. But, as Russell's work is seen on the whole he has very harsh language in dealing with religious figures. I don't think that this choice of language has anything to do with a higher standard, but with his opposition to religion altogether. It is hard to miss the contempt in this passage. I feel that he breaks his own code. In this very book I found my motto for studying philosophers - "In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt" (Russell, 39).

Russell has an obvious contempt for religion. It is difficult to believe that he drops this contempt for religious philosophers. If something that defines a person or theory is contemptible it is next to impossible not to hold the theory or person in anything but contempt.

I take to heart a view of 'hypothetical sympathy' in studying philosophy. It takes on a sort of pity that I have for humanity. Not though in the sense that I am in a position to pity anyone, but in the sense that we all are worthy of pity. If I solely held to this opinion then no man would be worth studying. The pity I have for myself and mankind as a whole is what drives me to strive for betterment (of myself and all mankind). It is a depressing pity, but a driving sympathy to mend broken hearts. Without a second part to this theory, life would be wholly depressing.

The fact that men are worth studying there is more than a pitifulness about man.  There is truth in men's theories. That is because all truth is God's truth. Pitiful men stumble blindly and discover truth all the time. Some stumble with more grace than others, but all fall on bits of truth because it is all around.

The trick of the philosopher is to separate the pitifulness of man from the truth of God. We have distorted vision and our senses and our own minds deceive us. But, the wisdom of God trumps man's wisdom and we sometimes tap into that through His grace. It is times of this clear understanding that we gain the most truth and knowledge. Regardless of the vastness of our pool of knowledge, our actions are what define us and what we will be judged by.