The theory of ideas

(Originally written July 8, 2006 in Book 4)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 15 - The theory of ideas

I don't understand how things that are sensible exist in contradictory states...

Plato's philosophy is based on the distinction between reality and appearance.

His synthesis of Parmenides' distinction of reality and appearance with the Pythagorean religious tone was extremely powerful and influenced philosophy up to and including Hegel.

What is a philosopher? A man who loves the vision of truth.

What is this vision?
-Not a particular, but a universal. Those who love particulars have opinions. Those who love universals have knowledge.

What is the difference between knowledge and opinion?
- Knowledge is infallible because it is logically impossible for it to be mistaken. "Opinion cannot be of what is not, for that is impossible, nor of what is, for then it would be knowledge. Therefore opinion must be of what both is and is not" (Russell, 120).

How are opinions possible?
-All sensible objects have contradictory characteristics. Opinion makes up the world that is sensible. Knowledge makes up the super-sensible, eternal world.

Heraclitus said 'we step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not'. Combined with Parmenides, we have Plato's theory.

Plato's theory introduced the theory of 'ideas' or 'forms'. This theory is part logical, part metaphysical.
The logical part has something to do with the meaning of words. They are not particulars, but universal words. They do not have position in space or time. They are eternal. The metaphysical part deals with the same word as being the ideal particular, created by God. The particular word takes part in the ideal, but imperfectly. Since they are imperfect versions of the ideal there can be many of them.

A number of individuals that have the same name also have the same form. All the individuals have an imperfect representation of the same ideal.

The ideal is perfect and real. It is through knowledge that one learns of it; whereas one learns of the sensible object through opinions, which are fallible because they correlate to an imperfect object.

The philosopher is concerned solely with the ideal, not the imperfect particular objects.

Plato - "How can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spectator of all time and all existence, think much of human life?" (Russell, 122).

In youth, one who is capable of becoming a philosopher will be distinguished from others by being just and gentle, fond of learning, possessed of a good memory and a naturally harmonious mind.

Side note - Thank God that Plato's prerequisites for philosophers do not stand. For as a youth I was fond of learning and had a good memory, but I was not gentle and had a skewed view of justice. Even today I do not possess a harmonious mind. Any semblance of harmony in my mind has been destroyed and thrown into disarray by studying philosophy. I would not have been a guardian it seems.

To institute Plato's Utopia either the philosophers must become the rulers (which is doubtful) or the rulers must become philosophers.

Plato thought he had found the latter in Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, but Dionysius turned out to be a failure.

Philosophy for Plato was a love of wisdom, a 'vision of truth', a synthesis of mind and feeling akin to Spinoza's 'intellectual love of God'.

Plato distinguishes the world of the intellect from the sensible world. Then the intellect and sense-perception are divided into two kinds.

The two kinds of intellect are reason and understand. Reason is the higher kind and deals with pure ideas via a dialectical method. Understanding is used in mathematics and is inferior because it uses hypotheses that are untestable.

Mathematics cannot tell us 'what is' only 'what could be if...'.

There aren't straight lines or perfect circles in the sensible world. Therefore, for them to exist there must be a super-sensible world.

The cave analogy is like the sensible and super-sensible world. The prisoners see the shadows and to them appear real. But those who have seen objects in the sunlight see the super-sensible world. Because the shadows appear dimmer to those who have seen the sunlight, those who have not seen the sunlight shrug off those who have as mad, crazy or stupid.

Plato regards science and truth like the good, but not the good.

Depsite many errors in Plato's theory, at the minimum one fact remains, "we cannot express ourselves in a language wholly of proper names, but must have also general words such as 'man', 'dog', 'cat' or if not these then relational words such as 'similar', 'before' and so on. Such words are not meaningless noises, and it is difficult to see how they can have meaning if the world consists entirely of particular things, such as designated by proper names" (Russell, 126-127).

It provides a prima facie case in favor of universals.

Plato has no concept of philosophical syntax. He fails to realize how great the gap between universals and particulars is.

His 'ideas' are really particulars, ethically and aesthetically superior to others (which he realizes later and writes one of the most remarkable self-criticisms of all time in the Parmenides).

Christians believe that God created everything. Plato believes God only created that which is good.

Russell - Why would God not then have been content with the world of ideas? Why not skip the cave altogether?

Linehan - The cave is the sensible world, of which necessarily exists for free will beings. If we existed only in some super-sensible world we could not have free will because we would then be equal with God. Why? If the super-sensible world is perfect then all beings in it must be perfect. Perfection is solely reserved for God. Therefore, if only the super-sensible world existed and no cave, then all inhabitants would be Gods or a part of God. Mr. Russell, you would never consider yourself God in the strictest sense of the word (maybe a god, but not God) nor do I. Nor would you fall into Spinoza's pantheistic 'all is God' because of its proven absurdity. Therefore, since we are neither Gods nor a part or extension of God, if God exists (as Christians and Plato believe) then the cave (or sensible world) necessarily exists. Not that I truly believe this, but without much thought is easy to answer your question from a Platonic, Neo-Platonic or Platonic Christian viewpoint. Therefore your question is answered, rebutted, and found fallacious.