Εμφανίζονται 5 τίτλοι με αναζήτηση: Βιογραφίες στην ευρύτερη περιοχή: "ΚΟΛΛΥΤΟΣ Αρχαίος δήμος ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ" .
ΚΟΛΛΥΤΟΣ (Αρχαίος δήμος) ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ
At the heart of Plato's philosophy is a vision of reality that sees the changing
world around us and the things within it as mere shadows or reflections of a separate
world of independently existing, eternal, and unchanging entities called "forms"
or "ideas." Ordinary objects are what they are and have the features
they do in virtue of their relation to or "participation in" these most
fundamental realities. Forms are the proper objects of knowledge or understanding,
and the desire to understand them is the proper dominant motivation in a healthy,
happy human life. The apprehension and appreciation of formal reality makes life
worth living; it also makes one moral.
These views, which find their most vigorous and eloquent expression
in the Republic, belong to Plato's philosophical maturity, not his youth. Plato
was born in 428 BCE, probably in Athens, to an aristocratic family. His uncle
Critias was a leader of the Thirty Tyrants, a group of oligarchs who ruled Athens
in 404-403 BCE; another uncle, Charmides, was also one of the Thirty. As a young
man Plato encountered Socrates, whose life and death influenced him immensely.
After Socrates? death in 399 BCE, Plato traveled widely, visiting, in particular,
Italy and Sicily, where he met Dionysius I, the ruler of Syracuse; Dionysius's
brother-in-law, Dion; and the mathematician Archytus of Tarentum. In 387 BCE,
Plato returned to Athens and founded the Academy, where he taught philosophy for
most of the rest of his life. He did visit Syracuse twice more. In 367, Dion invited
Plato to try to realize the Republic?s ideal of the philosopher-king in the person
of Dionysius II, who had just succeeded to the throne. Plato felt obliged to try,
but his efforts were unsuccessful. In 362 BCE, Dionysius II himself invited Plato
back to teach him philosophy; this visit too was unsuccessful. Plato died in 347
BCE in Athens.
Since there is no work of Plato's mentioned in antiquity that we do
not have, there is reason to think that all of his publications--forty-two dialogues
(though scholars doubt the authenticity of several)--survived. There are also
thirteen letters and two collections, one of definitions and one of epigrams.
Although the authenticity of the letters has been seriously questioned, most scholars
rely on the Seventh Letter for important facts about Plato's life.
On the basis of differences in style and doctrine, many scholars believe
that Plato's dialogues can be sorted roughly into three groups: a group of "Socratic"
dialogues that includes the Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthydemus, Euthyphro,
Gorgias, Greater Hippias, Ion, Laches, Lesser Hippias, Lysis, Menexenus, Meno,
and Protagoras; a second group comprising the Cratylus, Parmenides, Phaedo, Phaedrus,
Symposium, Republic, and Theaetetus; and a third group including the Critias (apparently
not completed by Plato), Laws, Philebus, Sophist, Statesman, and Timaeus. Many
also believe that Republic Book 1 was originally composed as a Socratic dialogue
and later revised for inclusion in the Republic; some would place the Gorgias
in the second group; and a few would include the Timaeus in the second group.
Nearly all scholars agree that the dialogues in the third group were written late
in Plato's life, and many think that the Socratic dialogues were probably written
much earlier, but before the dialogues in the second group. If they are right,
Plato's first and second trips to Syracuse may mark the divisions between the
three groups.
The Socratic dialogues are dominated by the figure of Socrates. Socrates
spent his time talking to people about ethical topics. He sought by this means
to discover definitions of the virtues, thinking that in learning what virtue
is, he would become virtuous, and that this would make his life a happy one. He
also sought to expose other people's false conceit of knowledge about ethical
matters, thinking that such conceit prevented them from becoming virtuous and
happy. Socrates appealed to some people, but he repelled many others; he also
came to be associated in the public mind with anti-democratic factions in Athens.
In 399 BCE, Socrates was tried on a charge of impiety, convicted, and put to death.
Socrates plainly had a huge influence on Plato, and the Socratic dialogues
seek to memorialize him. Two of them portray the equanimity and moral seriousness
with which Socrates conducted himself in his last days. The Apology purports to
be the speech Socrates made in defense of his life and conduct at his trial; in
the Crito, he gives reasons for rejecting an offer from his friends to get him
out of prison and away from Athens before his sentence can be carried out. Another
group of dialogues shows Socrates using the method of elenchus or cross-examination
to test definitions of the virtues or other moral notions offered by others: the
Charmides, a definition of temperance; Euthyphro, of piety; Greater Hippias, of
the fine; Laches, of courage; Lysis, of friendship; Meno, of virtue itself; and
Republic Book 1, of justice. A third group of dialogues (the Gorgias, Ion, and
Protagoras) shows Socrates using the elenchus to refute the moral views of those
who claim to have the knowledge he lacks. The question how the views of the historical
Socrates, the Socrates of Plato's Socratic dialogues, and Plato himself are related
to one another is extremely controversial. One common and reasonable answer is
that Plato seeks to remain true to the spirit though not necessarily the letter
of the philosophy of the historical Socrates.
In the dialogues of the second group, the theory of forms takes Socrates'
place at center stage. Plato abandons the elenchus as well as Socrates' concentration
on ethical topics in favor of an ambitious positive doctrine that ranges over
the full spectrum of human experience. In the great constructive dialogues of
this period--the Phaedo (which describes the day of Socrates' death), the Symposium
and the Phaedrus (both on love), and especially the Republic (on the ideal state
and the best life for a human being, and much else)--Plato achieves a combination
of artistic and philosophical excellence not seen since. In the remaining dialogues
of this group, Plato discusses philosophy of language (the Cratylus), philosophy
of knowledge (the Theaetetus), and his own theory of forms (the Parmenides).
Plato's last dialogues take up both neglected and previously considered
questions. The Sophist addresses difficulties first raised by Parmenides involving
not-being and falsity. The Timaeus supplements the middle period's theory of forms
to make possible an account of physical reality. The Philebus deals with pleasure,
a topic discussed briefly in the Gorgias and the Republic. The Statesman and the
Laws (very likely Plato's last work) return to issues in political philosophy,
a subject taken up earlier in the Crito and the Republic.
This text is cited August 2004 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Plato, (Platon). The greatest of the Athenian philosophers. He was
born May 26 (the seventh of Thargelion), B.C. 428, probably at Athens, though
some say at Aegina. He was of an aristocratic family, his father Aristo claiming
descent from Codrus, the last of the Athenian kings, and his mother Perictione
being of the family of Sohn. His name was originally Aristocles, after his grandfather,
but he was subsequently called Platon, in consequence of his fluency of speech,
or, as others say, because of his broad (platus) forehead or his broad shoulders.
The traditions that have come down regarding his birth and career are largely
mythical, and are given by Diogenes Laertius. One story makes him the son of Apollo,
and another tells how bees settled on his lips when a child, thus foreshadowing
his honeyed eloquence. Plutarch relates that he was humpbacked, but this, perhaps,
was not a natural defect; it may have first appeared late in life as a result
of his severe studies. Other ancient writers, on the contrary, speak in high terms
of his manly and noble mien. The only authentic bust that we have of him is at
present in the gallery at Florence. It was discovered near Athens in the fifteenth
century, and purchased by Lorenzo de' Medici. In this bust the forehead of the
philosopher is remarkably large. Plato first learned grammar, that is, reading
and writing, from Dionysius. In gymnastics, Ariston was his teacher; and he excelled
so much in these physical exercises that he entered, as is said, a public contest
at the Isthmian and Pythian Games. He studied painting and music under the tuition
of Draco, a scholar of Damon, and Metellus of Agrigentum; but his favourite employment
in his youthful years was poetry. The lively fancy and powerful style which his
philosophical writings so amply display must naturally have impelled him, at an
early period of life, to make some attempts at versification, which were assuredly
not without influence on the beautiful form of his later works. After he had enjoyed
the instruction of the most eminent teachers of poetry in all its forms, he proceeded
himself to make an attempt in heroic verse; but when he compared his production
with the masterpieces of Homer, he consigned it to the flames. He next tried lyric
poetry, but with no better success; and finally turned his attention to dramatic
composition. He elaborated four pieces, or a tetralogy, consisting of three separate
tragedies and one satyric drama; but an accident induced him to quit this career,
for which he was not probably fitted. A short time before the festival of Dionysus,
when his pieces were to be brought upon the stage, he happened to hear Socrates
conversing, and was so captivated by the charms of his manners as from that moment
to abandon poetry, and apply himself earnestly to the study of philosophy. But,
though Plato abandoned his poetic attempts, he still attended to the reading of
the poets, particularly Homer, Aristophanes, and Sophron, as his favourite occupation;
and he appears to have derived from them, in part, the dramatic arrangement of
his dialogues. He had already heard the instructions of Cratylus, a disciple of
the school of Heraclitus, and was now twenty years of age when he became acquainted
with Socrates. He continued a professed disciple of that philosopher for the space
of eight years, until the death of the latter. During all this period Socrates
regarded him as one of his most faithful pupils, and Plato always cherished a
deep affection and esteem for his master, so that when the latter was brought
to trial he undertook to plead his cause; but the partiality and violence of the
judges would not permit him to proceed. After the condemnation he presented his
master with money sufficient to redeem his life, which, however, Socrates refused
to accept. During his imprisonment Plato attended him, and was present at a conversation
which he held with his friends concerning the immortality of the soul, the substance
of which he afterwards committed to writing in the dialogue entitled Phaedo, not,
however, without interweaving his own opinions and language. Upon the death of
his master he withdrew, with several other friends of Socrates, to Megara, where
they were hospitably entertained by Euclid, and remained till the emeute at Athens
subsided. Brucker thinks that Plato received instruction in dialectics from Euclid.
Cicero relates that the Megarean philosopher drew many of his opinions from Plato.
Desirous of making himself master of all the wisdom and learning
which the age could furnish, Plato, after this, travelled into every country which
was so far enlightened as to promise him any recompense for his labour. He first
visited that part of Magna Graecia where a celebrated school of philosophy had
been established by Pythagoras. It is commonly believed that Plato formally became
a scholar of the Pythagoreans, and many persons are expressly named as his teachers
in the doctrines of that sect of philosophy. But this multitude of teachers is
of itself sufficient to excite suspicion; and, besides, Plato must then have been
at least thirty years old, and was undoubtedly acquainted with the Pythagorean
system long before his Italian voyage. How long Plato remained in Italy cannot
be determined, since all the accounts relative to this point are deficient. But
so much is certain, that he did not leave this country before he had gained the
entire friendship of the principal Pythagoreans, of which they subsequently gave
most unequivocal proofs. From Italy Plato went to Cyrene, the celebrated Greek
colony in Africa. It is not certain whether he visited Sicily in passing. According
to Apuleius, the object of his journey was to learn mathematics of Theodorus.
This mathematician, whose fame perhaps surpassed his knowledge, had given instruction
to the youth of Athens in this branch of science; and Plato, in all probability,
merely wished now to complete his knowledge on this subject. From Cyrene he proceeded
to Egypt, and, in order to travel with more safety upon his journey to the last-named
country, he assumed the character of a merchant, and, as a seller of oil, passed
through the kingdom of Artaxerxes Mnemon. Wherever he came, he obtained information
from the Egyptian priests concerning their astronomical observations and calculations.
It has been asserted that it was in Egypt that Plato acquired his opinions concerning
the origin of the world, and learned the doctrines of transmigration and the immortality
of the soul; but it is more than probable that he learned the latter doctrine
from Socrates, and the former from the school of Pythagoras. It is not likely
that Plato, in the habit of a merchant, could have obtained access to the sacred
mysteries of Egypt; for, in the case of Pythagoras, the Egyptian priests were
so unwilling to communicate their secrets to strangers that even a royal mandate
was scarcely sufficient in a single instance to gain this permission. Little regard
is therefore due to the opinions of those who assert that Plato derived his system
of philosophy from the Egyptians. That Plato's stay in Egypt extended to a period
of thirteen years, as some maintain, or even three years, as others state, is
highly incredible; especially as there is no trace in his works of Egyptian research,
and all that he tells us of Egypt indicates at most a very scanty acquaintance
with the subject.
After leaving Egypt, he went to Sicily in order to see the
volcano of Aetna, and visited Syracuse at the time when Dionysius the Elder was
reigning. At the court of Dionysius Plato became acquainted with Dio, the brother-in-law
of the tyrant, and Dio endeavoured to produce an influence upon the mind of Dionysius
by the conversation of Plato. But the attempt failed, and had nearly cost the
philosopher his life. Dionysius was highly incensed at the result of an argument
in which he was worsted by Plato, who took occasion also to advance in the course
of it some unpalatable truths; and in the first heat of his passion he would have
punished the hardihood of the philosopher with death, had not Dio and Aristomenes
together restrained him from it. They conceived, therefore, that Plato could no
longer stay at Syracuse without hazard, and accordingly secured passage for him
in a ship which was about to carry home Polis, a Lacedaemonian ambassador, or,
according to Olympiodorus, a merchant of Aegina. Dionysius heard of it, and bribed
Polis to sell him as a slave. He was accordingly sold by the treacherous Polis
on the island of Aegina, which was then involved in war with Athens. According
to some writers he was sold by the Aeginetans. A certain Anniceris, from Cyrene,
ransomed him for twenty or thirty minae. Plato's friends and scholars (according
to some, Dio alone) collected this sum in order to indemnify Anniceris, who, however,
was so noble-minded that with the money he purchased a garden in the Academe,
and presented it to the philosopher. When Plato had completed his travels, and
had reached the end of his various dangers and calamities, he returned to Athens,
and began publicly to teach philosophy in the Academy. He had inherited here a
garden, which was purchased for five hundred drachmae. This garden remained the
property of the philosophic school that he had founded. His memory was honoured
by the Athenians and by foreigners with monuments and statues. Diogenes states
that Plato taught philosophy first in the Academy, and also in a garden at Colonus.
His Academy soon became celebrated, and was numerously attended by high-born and
noble young men; for he had already, by means of his travels, and probably by
some publications, acquired a distinguished name. Among these disciples, from
whom he exacted no fee, were his nephew Speusippus, Xenocrates of Chalcedon, Aristotle,
Heraclides of Pontus, Hestiaeus of Perinthus, and Philippus the Opuntian, while
others, who were not regularly enrolled among his immediate followers, numbered
such men as Iphicrates, Timotheus, Phocion, Lycurgus, Hyperides, Isocrates, and
possibly Demosthenes.
Plato taught in the Academy for twenty-two years prior to his
second journey to Syracuse, which he undertook at the instigation of Dio, who
hoped, by the lessons of the philosopher, to influence the character of the new
ruler of Syracuse. This prince, it is said, had been brought up by his father
wholly destitute of an enlightened education, and it was now the task of Plato
to form his mind by philosophy. It seems, at the same time, to have been the plan
of Dio and Plato to bring about, by philosophical instruction, a wholesome reform
of the Sicilian constitution, by giving it a more aristocratic character. But,
whatever may have been their intentions, they were all frustrated by the weak
and voluptuous character of Dionysius. Dio became the object of the tyrant's suspicion,
and was conveyed away to the coast of Italy, without, however, forfeiting his
possessions. In this condition of affairs, Plato did not long remain in Syracuse,
where his position would at best have been ambiguous. He returned to Athens, but,
in consequence of some fresh disagreement between Dionysius and Dio, with respect
to the property of the latter, he was induced to take a third journey to Syracuse.
The reconciliation, which it was his object to effect, completely miscarried;
he himself came to an open rupture with Dionysius, and only obtained a free departure
from Sicily through the active interposition of his Pythagorean friends at Tarentum.
It does not appear that he took any part in the later conduct of Sicilian affairs,
though his nephew and disciple Speusippus and others of the Academy, rendered
personal assistance to Dio, in a warlike expedition against Dionysius. From this
time Plato seems to have passed his old age in tranquillity in his garden, near
the Academy, engaged with the instruction of numerous disciples, and the prosecution
of his literary labours. He died while yet actively employed about his philosophical
studies, in B.C. 347.
The philosophical writings of Plato have come down to us complete,
and have always been admired as a model of the union of artistic perfection with
philosophical acuteness and depth. They are in the form of dialogue; but Plato
was not the first writer who employed this style of composition for philosophical
instruction. Zeno the Eleatic had already written in the form of question and
answer. Alexamenus the Teian and Sophron in the mimes had treated ethical subjects
in the same form. Xenophon, Aeschines, Antisthenes, Euclides, and other Socratics
had also made use of the dialogical form; but Plato has handled this form not
only with greater mastery than any one who preceded him, but, in all probability,
with the distinct intention of keeping by this very means true to the admonition
of Socrates, not to communicate instruction, but to lead to the spontaneous discovery
of it. Moreover, the dramatic form gives great force and liveliness to the teaching,
and was used by Plato with so much ability as to lead to the grouping of the dialogues
into trilogies and tetralogies as though they had been actual dramas. The dialogues
of Plato are closely connected with one another, and various arrangements of them
have been proposed. Schleiermacher divides them into three series or classes.
In the first he considers that the germs of dialectic and of the doctrine of ideas
begin to unfold themselves in all the freshness of youthful inspiration; in the
second those germs develop themselves further by means of dialectic investigations
respecting the difference between common and philosophical acquaintance with things,
respecting notion and knowledge (doxa and episteme); in the third they receive
their completion by means of an objectively scientific working out, with the separation
of ethics and physics. The first series embraces, according to Schleiermacher,
the Phaedrus, Lysis, Protagoras, Laches, Charmides, Euthyphron, and Parmenides;
to which may be added as an appendix the Apologia, Crito, Ion, Hippias Minor,
Hipparchus, Minos, and Alcibiades II. The second series contains the Gorgias,
Theaetetus, Meno, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Sophistes, Politicus, Symposium, Phaedo,
and Philebus; to which may be added as an appendix the Theages, Erastae, Alcibiades
I., Menexenus, Hippias Major, and Clitophon. The third series comprises the Republic,
Timaeus, Critias, and the Laws. This arrangement may be accepted as a matter of
convenience, but scholars long ago ceased to think it possible to discover in
the dialogues any satisfactory evidence of the order of their composition. The
genuineness of many of the dialogues has been questioned, and the following are
undoubtedly spurious: Alcibiades II., Axiochus, Clitophon, Demadocus, Epinomis,
Erastae, Eryxias, Hipparchus, De Iust., Minos, Sisyphus, Theages, De Virtute.
The following are probably spurious: Hippias Minor, Alcibiades I., Menexenus.
The Letters are perhaps forgeries. The following are cited by Aristotle as having
been written by Plato: Republic, Timaeus, Laws, Phaedrus, Symposium, Gorgias,
Meno, Hippias I.; but obviously his silence as to the rest proves nothing.
It is impossible within any reasonable limits to give a satisfactory
account of the Platonic philosophy. His attempt to combine poetry and philosophy
(the two fundamental tendencies of the Greek mind) gives to the Platonic dialogues
a charm which irresistibly attracts us, though we may have but a deficient comprehension
of their subject matter. Plato, like Socrates, was penetrated with the idea that
wisdom is the attribute of the Godhead; that philosophy, springing from the impulse
to know, is the necessity of the intellectual man, and the greatest of the blessings
which he possesses. When once we strive after Wisdom with the intensity of a lover,
she becomes the true consecration and purification of the soul, adapted to lead
us from the night-like to the true day. An approach to wisdom, however, presupposes
an original communion with Being, truly so called; and this communion again presupposes
the divine nature or immortality of the soul, and the impulse to become like the
Eternal. This impulse is the love which generates in Truth, and the development
of it is termed Dialectics. Out of the philosophical impulse which is developed
by Dialectics, not only correct knowledge, but also correct action, springs forth.
Socrates's doctrine respecting the unity of virtue, and that it consists in true,
vigorous, and practical knowledge, is intended to be set forth in a preliminary
manner in the Protagoras and the smaller dialogues attached to it. They are designed,
therefore, to introduce a foundation for ethics by the refutation of the common
views that were entertained of morals and of virtue; for although not even the
words "ethics" and "physics" occur in Plato, and even dialectics
are not treated of as a distinct and separate province, yet he must rightly be
regarded as the originator of the threefold division of philosophy, inasmuch as
he had before him the decided object to develop the Socratic method into a scientific
system of dialectics, that should supply the grounds of our knowledge as well
as of our moral action (physics and ethics), and therefore he separates the general
investigations on knowledge and understanding, at least relatively, from those
which refer to physics and ethics. Accordingly, the Theaetetus, Sophistes, Parmenides,
and Cratylus are principally dialectical; the Protagoras, Gorgias, Politicus,
Philebus, and the Politics principally ethical; while the Timaeus is exclusively
physical. Plato's dialectics and ethics, however, have been more successful than
his physics. Plato's doctrine of ideas (ideai) was one of the most prominent parts
of his system. He maintained that the existence of things, cognizable only by
means of conception, is their true essence, their idea. Hence he asserts that
to deny the reality of ideas is to destroy all scientific research. He departed
from the original meaning of the word idea (namely, that of form or figure), inasmuch
as he understood by it the unities (henades, monades) which lie at the basis of
the visible, the changeable, and which can only be reached by pure thinking. He
included under the expression "idea" every thing stable amid the changes
of mere phenomena, all really existing and unchangeable definitudes, by which
the changes of things and our knowledge of them are conditioned, such as the ideas
of genus and species, the laws and ends of nature, as also the principles of cognition
and of moral action, and the essences of individual, concrete, thinking souls.
His system of ethics was founded upon his dialectics, as is remarked above. Hence
he asserted that, not being in a condition to grasp the idea of the good with
full distinctness, we are able to approximate to it only so far as we elevate
the power of thinking to its original purity.
The best MS. of the greater part of Plato is the Codex Clarkianus,
secured in Patmos by Daniel Clarke, an Englishman, and now in the Bodleian Library
(Oxford). It dates from A.D. 896, and does not include the Republic, of which
the best copy is a Paris codex (Codex Parisinus A) of the eleventh century.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
PLATO (Platon), the philosopher.(Article of: A dictionary of
Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith)
I. LIFE OF PLATO.
The spirit of Plato is expressed in his works in a manner the more
lively aid personal in proportion to the intimacy with which art and science are
blended in them. And yet of the history of his life and education we have only
very unsatisfactory accounts. He mentions his own name only twice (Phaedon, Apolog.),
and then it is for the purpose of indicating the close relation in which he stood
to Socrates; and, in passing, he speaks of his brothers, Adeimantus and Glaucon,
as sons of Ariston (de Rep. i., comp. Xenoph. Mem. iii. 6; Diog. Laert. iii. 4).
The writer of the dialogues retires completely behind Socrates, who conducts the
investigations in them. Moreover Plato's friends and disciples, as Speusippus
in his eulogiunm (Diog. Laert. iii. 2, with the note of Menage; Plut. Quaest.
Sympos. viii. 2, &c.), appear to have communicated only some few biographical
particulars respecting their great teacher; and Alexandrian scholars seem to have
filled up these accounts from sources which are, to a great extent, untrustworthy.
Even Aristoxenus, the disciple of Aristotle, must have proceeded in a very careless
manner in his notices respecting Plato, when he made him take part in the battles
at Tanagra, B. C. 426, and Delium, B. C. 424 (Diog. Laert. iii. 8 ; comp. Aelian,
V. H. ii. 30).
Plato is said to have been the son of Ariston and Perictione or Potone,
and to have been born at Athens on the 7th day of the month Thargelion (21st May),
Ol. 87. 2, B. C. 430; or, according to the statement of Apollodorus, which we
find confirmed in various ways, in Ol. 88. 1, B. C. 428, that is, in the (Olympic)
year in which Pericles died; according to others, he was born in the neighbouring
island of Aegina (Diog. Laert. iii. 1, 3 comp. v. 9, iii. 2, 3). His paternal
family boasted of being descended from Codrus; his maternal ancestors of a relationship
with Solon (Diog. Laert. iii. 1). Plato mentions the relationship of Critias,
his maternal uncle, with Solon (Charm, Comp. Tim. 20). Originally, we are told,
he was named after his grandfather Aristocles, but in consequence of the fluency
of his speech, or, as others have it, the breadth of his chest, he acquired that
name under which alone we know him (Diog. Laert. iii. 4).
According to one story, of which Speusippus had already made mention,
he was the son of Apollo; another related that bees settled upon the lips of the
sleeping child (Cic. de Divin. i. 36). He is also said to have contended, when
a youth, in thle Isthmian and other games, as well as to have made attempts in
epic, lyric, and dithyrambic poetry, and not to have devoted himself to philosophy
till later, probably after Socrates had drawn him within the magic circle of his
influence (Diog. Laetrt. iii. 4, 5; Aelian. V. H. ii. 30; Plat. Epist. vi.). His
love for Polymnia had brightened into love for the muse Urania (Plat. Symp. 187).
Plato was instructed in grammar, music, and gymnastics by the most distinguished
teachers of that time (Diog. Laert. iii. 4). At an early age (ek neou) he had
become acquainted, through Cratylus, with the doctrines of Heracleitus (Arist.
Metaph. i. 6 ; comp. Appuleius, de Doctr. Plat.); through other instructors, or
by means of writings, with the philosophical dogmas of the Eleatics and of Anaxagoras
(Diog. Laert. l. c); and what is related in the Phaedo and Parmenides of the philosophical
studies of the young Socrates, may in part be referable to Plato.
In his 20th year he is said to have betaken himself to Socrates, and
from that time onwards to have devoted himself to philosophy (Diog. Laert. iii.
6; Suidas s. v. makes this into an intercourse of twenty years' duration with
Socrates). The intimacy of this relation is attested, better than bv hearsay accounts
and insufficient testimonies (Diog. Laert. iii. 5; Paus. i. 30.3, &c.; Xen. Mem.
iii. 6.1), by the enthusiastic love with which Plato not only exhibits Socrates
tis he lived and died--in the Banquet and the Phaedo,--but also glorifies him
by making him the leader of the investigations in the greater part of his dialogues;
not as though he had thought himself secure of the assent of Socrates to all the
conclusions and developments which he had himself drawn from the few though pregnant
principles of his teacher, but in order to express his convictiont that he had
organically developed the restults involved in the Socratic doctrine. It is therefore
probable enough that, as Plutarch relates (Marius, 46; comp. Lactant. Div. Inst.
iii. 19.17), at the close of his life he praised that dispensation which had made
him a contemporary of Socrates.
After the death of the latter he betook himself, with others of the
Socratics, as Hermodorus had related, in order to avoid threatened persecutions
(Diog. Laert. ii. 106, iii. 6), to Eucleides at Megara, who of all his contemporaries
had the nearest mental affinity with him. That Plato during his residence in Megara
composed several of his dialogues, especially those of a dialectical character,
is probable enough, though there is no direct evidence on the subject. The communication
of the Socratic conversation recorded in the Theaetetus is referred to Eucleides,
and the controversial examination, contained in the Soplistes and apparently directed
against Eucleides and his school, of the tenets of the friends of certain incorporeal
forms (ideas) cognisable by the intellect, testifies esteem for him.
Friendship for the mathematician Theodorus (though this indeed does
not manifest itself in the way in which the latter is introduced in the Theaetetus)
is said to have led Plato next to Cyrene (Diog. Laert. iii. 6; Appul. l. c.).
Through his eagerness for knowledge he is said to have been induced to visit Egypt,
Sicily, and the Greek cities in Lower Italy (Cic. de Rep. i. 10, de Fin. v. 29;
Val. Max. viii. 7.3; Vita Anon. l. c.). Others, in inverted order, make him travel
first to Sicily and then to Egypt (Quintil. i. 12.15 ; Diog. Laert. iii. 6), or
from Sicily to Cyrene and Egypt, and then again to Sicily (Appuleius, l. c.).
As his companion we find mentioned Eudoxus (Strab. xvii. 29, in opposition to
Diog. Laert. viii. 87), or Sitmiias (Plut. de Daem. Socr. 7), or even Euripides,
who died Ol. 93. 2 (Diog. Laert. iii. 6). More distant journeys of Plato into
the interior of Asia, to the Hebrews, Babylonians, and Assyrians, to the Magi
and Persians, are mentioned only by writers on whom no reliance can be placed
(Clerm. Alex. adv. Gent.; Vita Anon.; comp. Diog. Laert. iii. 7; Lactant. Instit.
iv. 2 ; comp. Cic. Tusc. Disp. iv. 19). Even the fruits of his better authenticated
journeys cannot be traced in the works of Plato with any definiteness. He may
have enlarged his mathematical and astronomical knowledge, have received some
impulses and incitements through personal intercourse with Archytas and other
celebrated Pythagoreans of his age (Clem. Alex. Cic. Val. Max. &c. ll. cc.), have
made himself acquainted with Egyptian modes of life and Egyptian wisdom (Plat.
de Ley. ii., vii., Phaedo, Philcb., Tim. 21; comp. Epinom.); but on the fundamental
assumptions of his system, and its development and exposition, these journeys
can hardly have exercised any important influence; of any effect produced upon
it by the pretended Egyptian wisdom, as is assumed by Plessing (Memnonium, ii.)
and others, no traces are to be found. That Plato during his residence in Sicily,
through the intervention of Dion, became acquainted with the elder Dionysius,
but very soon fell out with the tyrant, is asserted by credible witnesses (especially
by Hegesander ap. Athen. xi. 116; Diod. xv. 7; Plut. Dion, 4, 5; Diog. Laert.
iii. 18, 19)...
More doubt attaches to the story, according to which he was given
up by the tyrant to the Spartan ambassador Pollis, by him sold into Aegina, and
set at liberty by the Cyrenian Anniceris. This story is told in very different
forms. On the other hand, we find the statement that Plato came to Sicily when
about forty years old, so that he would have returned to Athens at the close of
the 97th Olympiad (B. C. 389 or 388), about twelve years after the death of Socrates;
and perhaps for that reason Ol. 97. 4, was set down by the chronologers whom Eusebius
follows as the period when he flourished.
After his return he began to teach, partly in the gymnasium of the
Academy and its shady avenues, near the city, between the exterior Cerameicus
and the hill Colonus Hippius, partly in his garden, which was situated at Colontis
(Timon ap. Diog. Laert. iii. 7, comp. 5; Plut. de Exilio, c. 10, &c.). Respecting
the acquisition of this garden again, and the circumstances of Plato as regards
property generally, we have conflicting accounts (Plut. Diog. Laert. Appul. ll.
cc. ; A. Gell. N. A. iii. 17). Plato taught, gratuitously (Diog. Laert. iv. 2;
Olympiod. et Anon.), and agreeably to his maxims (Phaed., Protag., Gorg, comp.
Hipp. Min.), without doubt mainly in the form of lively dialogue; yet on the more
difficult parts of his doctrinal system he probably also delivered connected lectures;
at least in the accounts of his lectures, noted down by Aristotle and other disciples,
on the Good there appears no trace of the form of dialogue. Themistius also (Orat.
xxi.) represents him as delivering a lecture on the Good in the Peiraeeus before
an audience which gradually dwindled away. The more narrow circle of his disciples
(the number of them, which can scarcely have remained uniform, is stated at 28)
assembled themselves in his garden at common, simple meals (Athen. i. 7, xii.
69, x. 14, comp. Aelian, V. H. ii. 18, iii. 35; Diog. Laert. ii. 8), and it was
probably to them alone that the inscription said to have been set up over the
vestibule of the house, "let no one enter who is unacquainted with geometry,"
had reference (Tzetzes, Chiliad. viii. 972). From this house came forth his nephew
Speusippus, Xenocrates of Chalcedon, Aristotle, Heracleides Ponticus, Hestiaeus
of Perinthus, Philippus the Opuntian, and others, men from the most different
parts of Greece. To the wider circle of those who, without attaching themselves
to the more narrow community of the school, sought instruction and incitement
from him, distinguished men of the age, such as Chabrias, Iphicrates (Aristid.
ii.), Timotheus (Athen. x. 14, comp. Aelian. V. H. ii. 18.10; Plut. de Sanit.
tuenda), Phocion, Hyperides, Lycurgus, Isocrates (Diog. Laert. iii. 46), are said
to have belonged. Whether Demosthenes was of the number is doubtful (Dem. Epist.
v.; Cic. de Orat. i. 20, Brut. 32, Orat. 5, de Offic. i. 1, &c.). Even women are
said to have attached themselves to him as his disciples (Diog. Laert. l. c.,
comp. Olympiod.).
Plato's occupation as an instructor was twice interrupted by journeys
undertaken to Sicily; first when Dion, probably soon after the death of the elder
Dionysius (Ol. 103. 1, B. C. 368), determined him to make the attempt to win the
younger Dionysius to philosophy (Plat. Epist. vii., iii.; Plut. Dion, Philosoph.
esse cum Princip. c. 4; Corn. Nep. x. 3 ; Diog. Laert. iii. 21); the second time,
a few years later (about B. C. 361), when the wish of his Pythagorean friends,
and the invitation of Dionysius to reconcile the disputes which had broken out
shortly after Plato's departure between him and his stepuncle Dion, brought him
back to Syracuse. His efforts were both times unsuccessful, and he owed his own
safety to nothing but the earnest intercession of Archytas (Plat. Epist. vii.,
iii.; Plut. Dion, c. 20; Diog. Laert. iii. 25). Immediately after his return,
Dion, whom he found at the Olympic games (Ol. 105. 1, B. C. 360), prepared for
the contest, attacked Syracuse, and, supported by Speusippus and other friends
of Plato, though not by Plato himself, drove out the tyrant, but was then himself
assassinated; upon which Dionysius again made himself master of the government
(Plat. Ep.; Plut. ll. cc.; Diog. Laert. iii. 25). That Plato cherished the hope
of realising through the conversion of Dionysius his idea of a state in the rising
city of Syracuse, was a belief pretty generally spread in antiquity (Plut. Philos.
e. princ. c. 4; Themist. Oral. xvii.; Diog. Laert. iii. 21), and which finds some
confirmation in expressions of the philosopher himself, and of the seventh letter,
which though spurious is written with the most evident acquaintance with the matters
treated of. If however Plato had suffered himself to be deceived by such a hope,
and if, as we are told, he withdrew himself from all participation in the public
affairs of Athens, from despair with regard to the destinies of his native city,
noble even in her decline, he would indeed have exhibited a blind partiality for
a theory which was too far removed from existing institutions, and have at the
same time displayed a want of statesmanlike feeling and perception. He did not
comply with the invitations of Cyrene and Megalopolis, which had been newly founded
by the Arcadians and Thebans, to arrange their constitution and laws (Plut. ad
princ. inerud. c. 1; Diog. Laert. iii. 23; Aelian, V. H. ii. 42). And in truth
the vocation assigned him by God was more that of founding the science of politics
by means of moral principles than of practising it in the struggle with existing
relations. From the time when he opened the school in the Academy (it was only
during his second and third journeys to Sicily that one of his more intimate companions
-Heracleides Ponticus is named- had to supply his place (Suid. s. v. Ileracleid.)
we find him occupied solely in giving instruction and in the composition of his
works.
He is said to have died while writing in the 81st, or according to
others the 84th year of his age, in Ol. 108. 1, B. C. 347 (Cic. de Senect. 5;
Senec. Epist. lviii. ; Neanthes in Diog. Laert. iii. 3; Diog. Laert. v. 9 ; Athen.
v.). According to Hermippus he died at a marriage feast (Diog. Laert. iii. 3;
August. de Civ. Dei, viii. 2). Thence probably arose the title of the eloge of
Speusippus -Platonos perideipnon. According to his last will his garden remained
the property of the school (Diog. Laert. iii. 43), and passed, considerably increased
by later additions, into the hands of the Neo-Platonists, who kept as a festival
his birth-day as well as that of Socrates (Damasc. ap. Phot. Cod. ccxlii.; Porphyr.
ap. Euseb. Pracp. Evang. x. 3).
Athenians and strangers honoured his memory by monuments (Diog. Laert.
iii. 43; Phavorin. ib. 25). Yet he had no lack of enemies and enviers, and the
attacks which were made upon him with scoffs and ridicule, partly by contemporary
comic poets, as Theopompus, Alexis, Cratinus the younger, and others (Diog. Laert.
iii. 26, &c.; Athen. xi., ii.), partly by one-sided Socratics, as Antisthenes,
Diogenes. and the later Megarics (Diog. Laert. iii. 35, vi. 7, 26, ii. 119), found
a loud echo among Epicureans, Stoics, certain Peripatetics, and later writers
eager for detraction. Thus even Antisthenes and Aristoxenus (Diog. Laert. iii.
35; Athen. v., xi.; Mahne, de Aristoxeno) charged him with sensuality, avarice,
and sycophancy (Diog. Laert. iii. 29; Athen. xi., xiii.); and others with vanity,
ambition, and envy towards other Socratics (Athen. xi.; Diog. Laert. vi. 3, 7,
24, 26, 34). Others again accused him of having borrowed the form and substance
of his doctrine from earlier philosophers, as Aristippus, Antisthenes (Theopomp.
ap. Athen. xi.), Protagoras (Diog. Laert. iii. 37), Epicharmus (Alcimus ap. Diog.
Laert. iii. 9, &c.), Philolaus (Diog. Laert. iii. 9). But as the latter accusation
is refuted both by the contradiction which it carries in itself, and by comparison
of the Pythagorean doctrine with that of Plato, so is the former, not only by
the weakness of the evidence brought forward in its favour, but still more by
the depth and purity of moral sentiment, which, with all the marks of internal
truth, is reflected in the writings of Plato
.
II. THE WRITINGS OF PLATO.
These writings, by a happy destiny, have come down to us complete, so far as appears,
in texts comparatively well preserved, and have always been admired as a model
of the union of artistic perfection with philosophical acuteness and depth. Plato
was by no means the first to attempt the form of dialogue. Zeno the Eleatic had
already written in the form of question and answer (Diog. Laert. iii. 48; comp.
Arist. Elench. Soph. 10). Alexamenus the Teian and Sophron in the mimes had treated
ethical subjects in the form of dialogue (Diog. Laert. l. c. ; Athen. xi.; Olympiod.).
Xenophon, Aeschines, Antisthenes, Eucleides, and other Socratics also had made
use of the dialogical form (Diog. Laert. passim); but Plato has handied this form
not only with greater mastery than any one who preceded him, and, one may add,
than any one who has come after him, but, in all probability, with the distinct
intention of keeping by this very means true to the admonition of Socrates, not
to communicate instruction, but to lead to the spontaneous discovery of it. The
dialogue with him is not merely a favourite method of clothing ideas, handed down
from others, as has recently been maintained, but the mimetic dramatic form of
it is intended, while it excites and enchains the attention of the reader, at
the same time to give him the opportunity and enable him to place himself in the
peculiar situations of the different interlocutors, and, not without success,
with them to seek and find. But with all the admiration which from the first has
been felt for the distinctness and liveliness of the representation, and the richness
and depth of the thoughts, it is impossible not to feel the difficulty of rendering
to oneself a distinct account of what is designed and accomplished in any particular
dialogue, and of its connection with others. And yet again it can hardly be denied
that each of the dialogues forms an artistically self-contained whole, and at
the same time a link in a chain. That the dialogues of Plato were from first to
last not intended to set before any one distinct assertions, but to place the
objects in their opposite points of view (Cic. Acad. i. 12), could appear credible
only to partisans of the more modern sceptical Academy. Men who took a deeper
view endeavoured, by separating the different kinds and classes of the dialogues,
or by arranging together those which had a more immediate reference to each other,
to arrive at a more correct understanding of them. With reference to the first,
some distingllished dramatic, narrative, and mixed dialogues (Diog. Laert. iii.
50), others investigating and instructing dialogues, and again such as investigated
gymnastically (maieutically or peirastically,) and agonistically (endeictically
or anatreptically); as also dialogues which communicated instruction theoretically
(physically or logically), and practically (ethically or politically) (Diog. Laert.
iii. 49; Albin. Isag. 128). With regard to the second point, attention was especially
directed to the dramatic character of the dialogues, and, according to it, the
Alexandrian grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium arranged a part of them together
in trilogies (Sophistes, Politicus, Cratylus -- Theaetetus, Euthyphron, Apology--Politeia,
Timaeus, Critias--the Laws, Minos, Epinomis -- Criton, Phaedon, Letters), the
rest he left unarranged, though on what grounds he was led to do so it is not
easy to discover. Thrasylus, in the age of Tiberius, with reference to the above-named
division into investigating and instructing dialogues, divided the whole number
into tetralogies, probably because Plato had given intimation of his intention
to add as a conclusion to the dialogues Theaetetus, Sophistes, and Politicus,
one called Philosophus, and to the trilogy of the Politeia, Timaeus, and Critias,
the Hermocrates (Plat. Politic., Critias). In place of the unwritten, if intended,
Philosophus, Thrasylus adds to the first of the two trilogies, and as the first
member of it, the Cratylus; to the second, in place of the Hermocrates, and again
as the first member, the Clitophon (Diog. Laert. iii. 56; comp. Albin. Isag).
Although this division appears to have been already usual in Varro's time (de
Ling. Lat. vi. 80, Bip.), and has been adopted in many manuscripts, as well as
in the older editions, it is not more satisfactory than the others which have
been mentioned, partly because it combines genuine and spurious dialogues, partly
because, neglecting internal references, it not unfrequently unites according
to merely external considerations. Nor have the more recent attempts of Samuel
Petitus, Sydenham, and Serranus, which connect themselves more or less with those
earlier attempts, led to any satisfactory arrangement. Yet at the basis of all
these different attempts there lies the correct assumption, that the insight into
the purport and construction of the separate Platonic dialogues depends upon our
ascertaining the internal references by which they are united with each other.
As Schleiermacher, for the purpose of carrying out this supposition, endeavored
to point out in Plato himself the leading ideas which lay at the foundation, and
by means of them to penetrate to the understanding of each of the dialogues and
of its connection with the rest, he has become the originator of a new era in
this branch of investigation, and might with good reason be termed by I. Bekker,
who has done so much for the critical restoration of the text, Platois restitutor.
Schleiermiacher starts with Plato's declaration of the insufficiency of written
communication. If he regarded this as the lifeless image of living colloquy, because,
not being able to unfold its meaning, presenting itself to those who do understand
as to those who do not, it produces the futile belief of being possessed of knowledge
in those who do not know, being only adapted to remind the reader of convictions
that have been produced and seized in a lively manner (Plat. Phaedr.), and nevertheless
spent a considerable part of his long life in the composition of written works,
he must doubtless have convinced [p. 396] himself that he was able to meet that
deficiency up to a certain point, to communicate to the souls of the readers with
science discourses which, being capable of representing their own meaning and
of standing in the place of the person who thus implanted them, should show themselves
fruitful. The understanding of many of the dialogues of Plato, however, is rendered
difficult by this circumstance, that a single dialogue often contains different
investigations, side by side, which appear to be only loosely connected, and are
even obscured by one another; and these investigations, moreover, often seem to
lead to no conclusion, or even to issue in contradictions. We cannot possibly
look upon this peculiarity as destitute of purpose, or the result of want of skill.
If, however, it was intended, the only purpose which can have been at the bottom
of it must have been to compel the reader, through his spontaneous participation
in the investigations proposed, to discover their central point, to supply intermediate
members that are wanting, and in that way himself to discover the intended solution
of the apparent contradictions. If the reader did not succeed in quite understanding
the individual dialogue by itself, it was intended that he should seek the further
carrying out of the investigations in other dialogues, and notice how what appeared
the end of one is at the same time to be regarded as the beginning and foundation
of another. Nevertheless, according to the differences in the investigation and
in the susceptibility and maturity for it to be presupposed in the reader, the
mode of conducting it and the composition of the dialogue devoted to it would
require to be different. Schleierniacher distinguishes three series and classes
of dialogues. In the first he considers that thle germs of dialectic and of the
doctrine of ideas begin to unfold themselves in all the freshness of the first
youthful inspiration, with the fulness of an imagtinative, dramatically mimetic
representation; in the second those germs develop themselves further by means
of dialectic investigations respecting the difference between common and philosophical
acquaintance with things, respecting notion and knowledge (doxa and episteme);
in the third they receive their completion by means of an objectively scientific
working out, with the separation of ethics and physics. To suppose that Plato.
when he composed the first of his dialogues, already had clearly before his eyes
in distinct outlines the whole series of tihe rest, with all their internal references
and connecting links; and farther, that from the beginning to the end he never
varied, but needed only to keep on spinning the thread he had once begun, without
any where taking it up atlresh,--such a supposition would indeed be preposterous,
as Heremann remarks against Schleiernimacher. But tie assumption above referred
to respecting the composition and succession of the dialogues of Plato by no means
depends upon any such supposition. It is enough to believe that tihe fundamental
germs of his system early malmde their appearance in the mind of Plato in a definite
form, and attained to their development inr a natural mmanuer through the power
that resided in them. We need suppose in the case of Plato only what may be demonstrated
in the case of other great thinkers of more modern times, as Des Cartes, Spinozn,
Fichte, Schelling. Nay, we are not cvel compelled to assume (what indeed is very
improbable) that the succession of the dialogues according to their internal references
must coincide with the chronological order in which they were composed. Why should
not Plato, while he had already commenced works of the third class, have found
occasion now and then to return to the completion of the dialogues of the second,
or even of the first class? As regards, however, the arrangements in detail, we
will not celly that Schleiermacher, in the endeavour to assign its place to every
dialogue according to the presupposed connection with all the rest running through
the series, has now and then suffered himself to be misled by insecure traces,
and has been induced partly to regard some leading dialogues from an incorrect
or doubtful point of view, partly to supply references by means of artificial
combinations. On the other hand, we believe, after a careful examination of the
objections against it that have been made good, that we may adopt the principle
of the arrangement and the most important points of it.
The first series embraces, according to Schleiermacher, the larger
dialogues, Phaedrus, Protagoras, and Parmenides, to which the smaller ones, Lysis,
Laches, Charmides, and Euthyphron are to be added as supplements. When others,
on the contrary, declare themselves for a much later composition of the Phaedrus,
and Hermann in particular regards it as the entranceprogramnime written by Plato
for the opening of his school, we will indeed admit that the account which makes
that dialogue Plato's first youthful composition (Diog. L. iii. 38; Olympiod.
Vita Plat.) can pass for nothing more than a conclusion come to by learned philosophers
or grammarians (though the judgments of Euphorion, Panaetius, and Dicaearchus
brought forward in favour of the opinion deserve regard); but that the compass
of knowledge said to be found in the dialogue, and the fulness and maturity of
the thoughts, its similarity to the Symposium and Menexenus, the acquaintance
with Egyptian mythology and Pythagorean philosophy, bear indubitable testimony
to a later composition, we cannot admit; but we must rather appeal to the fact
that the youthful Plato, even before he had visited Egypt and Magna Graecia, might
easily have acquired such an amount of knowledge in Athens, the centre of all
the philosophical life of that age; and further, that what is brougliht forward
as evidence of the compass and maturity of the thoughts is rather the youthful,
lively expression of the first conception of great ideas. With the Phaedrus the
Lysis stands connected as a dialectic essay upon love. But as the Phaedrus contains
the outlines of the peculiar leading doctrines of Plato partly still as forebodings
expressed in a mythical form, so the Protagoras is distinctly to be regarded as
the Socratic method in opposition to the sophistic, in discussions wlich we might
term the Propylaea of the doctrine of morals. The early composition of this dialogue
is assumed even by the antagonists of Schleiermacher, they only dispute on insufficient
grounds either the gelnuimeness of the smaller dialogues Charmides, Laches and
Euthyphron, or their connection with the Protagoras, which manifests itself in
this, that the former had demonstrated the insufficiency of the usual moral definitions
in reference to the ideas of virtue as connected with temperance (sophrosune),
bravery, and holiness, to which the latter had called attention generally. The
profound dialogue Parmenides, on the other hand, we cannot with Schleiermacher
regard either as a mere dialectic exercise, or as one of the earlier works of
Plato, but rather see ourselves compelled to assign it a place in the second series
of the dialogues of Plato. The foundation of this series is formed by the dialogues
Theaetetus, Sophistes, and Politicus, which have clearly a mutual connection.
Before the Theaetetus Schleiermacher places the Gorgias, and the connection of
the two is indubitable, in so far as they both exhibit the constant and essential
in opposition to the changeable and contingent, the former in the domain of cognizance,
the latter in that of moral action; and as the Theaetetus is to be placed before
the Sophistes, Cratylus and other dialogues, so is the Gorgias to be placed at
the head of the Politicus, Philebus and the Politeia. Less certain is the position
assigned by Schleiermacher to the Menon. Enthydemus and Cratylus, between the
Theaetetus and Sophistes. The Menon seems rather expressly designed to form a
connecting link between the investigations of the Gorgias and those of the Theaetetus,
and on the one hand to bring into view the distinction discussed in the latter
between correct notion and true apprehension, in its application to the idea of
virtue; on the other hand, by means of this distinction to bring nearer to its
final decision the question respecting the essence of the good, as of virtue and
the possibility of teaching it. It might be more difficult to assign to the Euthydemus
its definite place. Although with the ridicule of the empty polemical artifices
of sophists which is contained in it, there are connected intimations respecting
wisdom as the art of those who are in a condition at the same time to produce
and to use what they produce, the dialogue nevertheless should probably be regarded
as an occasional piece. The Cratylus opposes to the scoffing art of the sophist,
dealing in grammatical niceties, the image of dialectic art which recognises and
fashions language as a necessary production of the human mind. It should, however,
find its appropriate place not before the Sophistes (where Schleiermacher places
it), but after it, as the application of dialectic to language could hardly become
a matter of inquiry until the nature of dialectic had been discussed, as is done
in the Sophistes. The Eleatic stranger, when questioned by Socrates respecting
the nature and difference of the sophist, the statesman and the philosopher, answers
only the first two of these questions, in the dialogues that bear those names,
and if Plato had intended a third and similar investigation respecting the nature
of the philosopher, he has not undertaken the immediate fulfilmentof his design.
Schleiermacher therefore assumes that in the Banquet and Phaedon taken together
the model of the philosopher is exhibited in the person of Socrates, in the former
as he lived, glorified by the panegyric of Alcibiades, and marked by the function,
so especially peculiar to him, of love generating in the beautiful; in the latter
as he appears in death, longing to become pure spirit. The contents of the two
dialogues, however. and their organization as regarded from the point of view
of this assumption, is not altogether intelligible. But as little should we, with
Ed. Zeller, look for the missing member of the trilogy, of which we have part
in the Sophistes and Politicus, in the exclusively dialectical Parmenides. But
Plato might the sooner have given up the separate exhibition of the philosopher,
partly inasmuch as the description of him is already mixed up with the representation
of the sophist and the politician, partly as the picture is rendered complete
by means of the Symposium and the Phaedon, as well as by the books on the state.
Meantime the place which Schleiermacher assigns to those two dialogues between
the Sophistes and Philebus may be regarded as amply justified, as even Hermann
admits in opposition to Ast and Socher. Only we must reserve room at this same
place for the Parmenides. In this most difficult of the Platonic dialogues, which
has been treated of at length by Ed. Zelle, Stallbaum, Brandis, and others, we
find on the one hand the outlines of the doctrine of ideas with the difficulties
which oppose themselves to it briefly discussed, on the other hand a considerably
more extended attempt made to point out in connection with the conceptions considered
in themselves, and in particular with the most universal of them, the One and
Existence, the contradictions in which the isolated, abstract contemplation of
those conceptions involves us; manifestly in order to pave the way for the solution
of those difficulties. In this the Parmenides is closely connected with the Sophistes,
and might be placed immediately after the Cratylus, before the Symposium and Phaedon.
But that the Philebus is to be regarded as the immediate transition from the second,
dialectical, series of dialogues to the third, Schleiermacher has incontrovertibly
shown; and the smaller dialogues, which as regards their contents and form are
related to those of the second series, in so far as they are not banished as spurious
into the appendix, should be ranked with them as occasional treatises. In the
third series the order for the books on the state (Politeia), the Timaeus and
the Critias, has been expressly marked by Plato himself, and with the books on
the state those on the laws connect themselves as a supplement.
Ast, though throughout polemically opposed to Schleiermacher, sees
himself compelled in the main to recognise the threefold division made by the
latter, as he distinguishes Socratic dialogues, in which the poetic and dramatic
prevail (Protagoras, Phaedrus, Gorgias and Phaedon), dialectic dialogues (Theaetetus,
Sophistes, Politicus and Cratylus), and purely scientific, or Socratico-Platonic
dialogues (Philebus, Symposiuln, Politeia, Timaeus and Critias. But through this
new conception and designation of the first series, and by adding, in the separation
of the second and third series, an external ground of division to the internal
one, he has been brought to unsteady and arbitrary assumptions which leave out
of consideration the internal references. Socher's attempt to establish in place
of such arrangements depending upon internal connection a purely chronological
arrangement, depending on the time of their composition , has been followed by
no results that can in any degree be depended on, as the date of the composition
can be approximately determined by means of the anachronisms (offences against
the time in which they are supposed to take place) contained in them in but a
few dialogues as compared with the greatly preponderating number of those in which
he has assigned it from mere opinion. K. F. Hermann's undertaking, in the absence
of definite external statements, to restore a chronological arrangement of the
dialogues according to traces and marks founded in facts, with historical circumspection
and criticism, and in doing so at the same time to sketch a faithful picture of
the progress of the mental life and development of the writer of them, is considerably
more worth notice. In the first period, according to him, Plato's Socrates betrays
no other view of life, or scientific conception, than such as we become acquainted
with in the historical Socrates out of Xenophon and other unsuspicious witnesses
(Hippias, Ion, Alcibiades I., Charmides, Lysis, Laches, Protagoras, and Euthydemus).
Then, immediately after the death of Socrates, the Apology, Criton, Gorgias, Euthyphron,
Menon, and Hippias Major belong to a transition step. In the second, or Megaric
period of development dialectic makes its appearance as the true technic of philosophy,
and the ideas as its proper objects (Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophistes, Politicus,
Parmenides). Lastly in the third period the system itself is exhibited (Phaedrus,
Menexenus, Symposium, Phaedo, Philebus, Politeia, Timaeus, Critias, and the Laws).
But although Hermann has laboured to establish his assumptions with a great expenditure
of acuteness and learning, he has not attained to results that can in any degree
stand the test of examination. For the assumptions that Plato in the first period
confined himself to an analytic treatment of ideas, in a strictly Socratic manner,
and did not attain to a scientific independence till he did so through his removal
to Megara, nor to an acquaintance with the Pythagorean philosophy, and so to the
complete development of his dialectic and doctrine of ideas, till he did so through
his travels,--for these assumptions all that can be made out is, that in a number
of the dialogues the peculiar features of the Platonic dialectic and doctrine
of ideas do not as yet make their appearance in a decided form. But on the one
hand Hermann ranks in that class dialogues such as the Euthydemus, Menon, and
Gorgias, in which references to dialectic and the doctrine of ideas can scarcely
fail to be recognised ; on the other it is not easy to see why Plato, even after
he had laid down in his own mind the outlines of his dialectic and doctrine of
ideas, should not now and then, according to the separate reqnirements of the
subject in hand, as in the Protagoras and the smaller dialogues which connect
themselves with it, have looked away from them, and transported himself back again
completely to the Socratic point of view. Then again, in Hermann's mode of treating
the subject, dialogues which stand in the closest relation to each other, as the
Gorgias and Theaetetus, the Euthydemus and Theaetetus, are severed from each other,
and assigned to different periods; while the Phaedon, the Symposium and the Philebus
are separated from the Sophistes and Politicus, with which they are much more
closely connected than with the delineative works, the Politeia, Timaeus, &c.
Lastly, as regards the genuineness of the writings of Plato, we cannot,
indeed, regard the investigations on the subject as brought to a definitive conclusion,
though we may consider ourselves convinced that only a few occasional pieces,
or delineations of Socratic conversations, are open to doubts of any importance,
not those dialogues which are to be regarded as the larger, essential members
of the system. Even if these in part were first published by disciples of Plato,
as by Hermodorus (who has been accused of smuggling in spurious works only through
a misunderstanding of a passage in Cicero, ad Alt. xiii. 21), and by Philippus
the Opuntian; and though, further, little can be built upon the confirmation afforded
by their having been received into the trilogies of the grammarian Aristophanes,
the authenticity of the most important of them is demonstrated by the testimonies
of Aristotle and some other incontrovertible authorities (the former will be found
carefully collected in Zeller's Platonische Studien. Notwithstanding these testimonies,
the Parmenides, Sophistes, and Politicus, and the Menon, have been assailed on
exceedingly insufficient grounds; the books on the Laws in a manner much more
deserving of attention (especially by Zeller); but yet even the latter are with
preponderating probability to be regarded as genuine. On the other hand the Epinomis
is probably to be assigned to a disciple of Plato, the Minos and Hipparchus to
a Socratic. The second Alcibiades was attributed by ancient critics to Xenophon
(Athen. xi.). The Anterastae and Clitophon are probably of much later origin.
The Platonic letters were composed at different periods; the oldest of them, the
seventh and eighth, probably by disciples of Plato. The dialogues Demodocus, Sisyphus,
Eryxias, Axiochus, and those on justice and virtue, were with good reason regarded
by ancient critics as spurious, and with them may be associated the Hipparchus,
Theages, and the Definitions. The genuineness of the first Alcibiades seems doubtful,
though Hermann defends it. The smaller Hippias, the Ion, and the Menexenus, on
the other hand, which are allowed by Aristotle, but assailed by Schleiermacher
and Ast, might very well maintain their ground as occasional compositions of Plato.
As regards the thorough criticism of these dialogues in more recent times, Stallbaum
in particular, in the prefaces to his editions, and Hermann, have rendered important
services.
However groundless may be the Neo-platonic assumption of a secret
doctrine, of which not even the passages brought forward out of the insititious
Platonic letters contain any evidence, the verbal lectures of Plato certainly
did contain an extension and partial alteration of the doctrines discussed in
the dialogues, with an approach to the number-theory of the Pythagoreans ; for
to this we should probably refer the "unwritten assumptions" (agrapha dogmata),
and perhaps also the divisions (diaireseis), which Aristotle mentions (Phys. iv.
2;Diog. Laert. iii. 80). His lectures on the doctrine of the good, Aristotle,
Heracleides Ponticus, and Hestiaeus, had noted down, and from the notes of Aristotle
some valuable fragments have come down to us (Arist. de Anima, i. 2; ib. Simpl.
et Joh. Philop.; Aristox. Harmonica, ii.). The Aristotelic monography on ideas
was also at least in part drawn from lectures of Plato, or conversations with
him.
III. THE PHILOSPHY OF PLATO.
The attempt to combine poetry and philosophy (the two fundamental tendencies of
the Greek mind), gives to the Platonic dialogues a charm, which irresistibly attracts
us, though we may have but a deficient comprehension of their subjectmatter. Even
the greatest of the Grecian poets are censured by Plato, not without some degree
of passion and partiality, for their want of clear ideas, and of true insight.
Art is to be regarded as the capacity of creating a whole that is inspired by
an invisible order; its aim, to guide the human soul. The living, unconsciously-creative
impulse of the poet, when purified by science, should, on its part, bring this
to a full development. Carrying the Socratic dialogue to greater perfection, Plato
endeavours to draw his hearers, by means of a dramatic intuition, into the circle
of the investigation; to bring them, by the spur of irony, to a consciousness
either of knowledge or of ignorance; by means of myths, partly to waken up the
spirit of scientific inquiry, partly to express hopes and anticipations which
science is not yet able to confirm.
Plato, like Socrates, was penetrated with the idea that wisdom is
the attribute of the Godhead, that philosophy, springing from the impulse to know,
is the necessity of the intellectual man, and the greatest of the goods in which
he participates. When once we strive after Wisdom with the intensity of a lover,
she becomes the true consecration and purification of the soul, adapted to lead
us from the nightlike to the true day. An approach to wisdom, however, presupposes
an original communion with Being, truly so called ; and this communion again presupposes
the divine nature or immortality of the soul, and the impulse to become like the
Eternal. This impulse is the love which generates in Truth, and the development
of it is termed Dialectics. The hints respecting the constitution of the soul,
as independent of the body; respecting its higher and lower nature ; respecting
the mode of apprehension of the former, and its objects, the eternal and the self-existent
; respecting its corporisation, and its longing by purification to raise itself
again to its higher existence: these hints, clothed in the form of mythus, are
followed up in the Phaiedrus by panegyrics on the love of beauty, and discussions
on dialectics, here understood more immediately as the art of discoursing. Out
of the philosophical impulse which is developed by Dialectics not only correct
knowledge, but also correct action springs forth. Socrates' doctrine respecting
the unity of virtue, and that it consists in true, vigorous, ald practical knowledge;
that this knowledge, however, lying beyond sensuous perception and experience,
is rooted in self-consciousness and has perfect happiness (as the inward harmony
of the soul) for its inevitable consequence : this doctrine is intended to be
set forth in a preliminary manner in the Protagoras and the smaller dialogues
attached to it. They aredesigned, therefore, to introduce a foundation for ethics,
by the refutation of the common views that were entertained of morals and of virtue.
For although not even the words ethics and physics occur in Plato (to say nothing
of any independent delineation of the one or the other of these sciences), and
even dialectics are not treated of as a distinct and separate province, yet he
must rightly be regarded as the originator of the threefold division of philosophy,
inasmuch as he had before him the decided object to develop the Socratic method
into a scientific system of dialectics, that should supply the grounds of our
knowledge as well as of our moral action (physics and ethics), and therefore separates
the general investigations on knowledge and understanding, at least relatively,
from those which refer to physics and ethics. Accordingly, the Theaetetus, Sophistes,
Parmenides, and Cratylus, are principally dialectical; the Protagoras, Gorgias,
Politicus, Philebus, and the Politics, principally ethical; while the Timaeus
is exclusively physical. Plato's dialectics and ethics, however, have been more
successful than his physics.
The question, "What is knowledge," had been brought forward more and
more definitely, in proportion as the development of philosophy generally advanced.
Each of the three main branches of the ancient philosophy, when at their culminating
point, had made a trial at the solution of that question, and considered themselves
bound to penetrate beneath the phenomenal surface of the affections and perceptions.
Heracleitus, for example, in order to gain a sufficient ground for the common
(xunon), or, as we should say, for the universally admitted, though in contradiction
to his fundamental principle of an eternal generation, postulates a world-consciousness
; Parmenides believed that he had discovered knowledge in the identity of simple,
unchangeable Being, and thought; Philolaus, and with him the flower of the Pythagoreans
generally, in the consciousness we have of the unchangeable relations of number
and measure. When, however, the conflict of these principles, each of them untenable
in its own one-sidedness, had called forth the sophists, and these had either
denied knowledge altogether, or resolved it into the mere opinion of momentary
affection, Socrates was obliged above all things to show, that there was a knowledge
independent of the changes of our sensuous affections, and that this knowledge
is actually found in our inalienable consciousness respecting moral requirements,
and respecting the divinity, in conscientious self-intellection. To develope this
by induction from particular manifestations of the moral and religious sense,
and to establish it, by means of definition, in a comprehensible form, -that is,
in its generality,- such was the point to which his attention had mainly to be
directed. Plato, on the contrary, was constrained to view the question relating
to the essence and the material of our knowledge, as well of that which develops
itself for its own sake, as of that which breaks out into action, -of the theoretical
as well as of the practical, more generally, and to direct his efforts, therefore,
to the investigation of its various forms. In so doing he became the originator
of the science of knowledge,- of dialectics. No one before him had gained an equally
clear perception of the subjective and objective elements of our knowledge; no
one of the theoretical and the practical side of it; and no one before him had
attempted to discover its forms and its laws.
The doctrine of Heracleitus, if we set aside the postulate of a universal
world-consciousness, had been weakened down to the idea that knowledge is confined
to the consciousness of the momentary affection which proceeds from the meeting
of the motion of the subject with that of the object; that each of these affections
is equally true, but that each, on account of the incessant change of the motions,
must be a different one. With this idea that of the atomistic theory coincided,
inasmuch as it was only by means of arbitrary hypotheses that the latter could
get over the consciousness of ever-changing sensuous affections. In order to refute
this idea from its very foundation, once for all, Plato's Theaetetus sets forth
with great acuteness the doctrine of eternal generation, and the results which
Protagoras had drawn from it; he renounces the apparent, but by no means decisive
grounds, which lie against it; but then demonstrates that Protagoras must regard
his own assertion as at once true and false; that he must renounce and give up
all determinations respecting futurity, and consequently respecting utility; that
continuity of motion being presuplposed, no perception whatever could be attained;
and that the comparison and combination of the emotions or perceptions presupposes
a thinking faculty peculiar to the soul (reflection), distinct from mere feeling.
The man who acknowledges this, if he still will not renounce sensualism, yet will
be inclined from his sense-perceptions to deduce recollection; from it, conception;
from conception, when it acquires firmness, knowledge; and to designate the latter
as correct conception; although he will not be in a condition to render any account
of the rise of incorrect conceptions, or of the difference between those and correct
ones, unless he presupposes a knowledge that lies, not merely beyond conception
generally, but even beyond correct conception, and that carries with it its own
evidence. He will also be obliged to give up the assertion, that knowledge consists
in right conception, united with discourse or explanation; for even thus an absolutely
certain knowledge will be presupposed as the rule or criterion of the explanation,
whatever may he its more accurate definition. Although, therefore, Plato concludes
the dialogue with the declaration that he has not succeeded in bringing the idea
of knowledge into perfect clearness, but that it must be something which excludes
all changeableness, something which is its own guarantee, simple, uniform, indivisible,
and not to be reached in the science of numbers: of this the reader, as he spontaneously
reproduces the investigation, was intended to convince himself. That knowledge,
however, grounded on and sustained by logical inference, should verify itself
through the medium of true ideas, can only be considered as the more perfect determination
of the conclusion to which he had come in the Theaetetus.
But before Plato could pass on to his investigations respecting the
modes of development and the forms of knowledge, he was obliged to undertake to
determine the objects of knowledge, and to grasp that knowledge in its objective
phase. To accomplish this was the purpose of the Sophistes, which immediately
attaches itself to the Theaetetus, and obviously presupposes its conclusions.
In the latter dialogue it had already been intimated that knowledge can only take
place in reference to real existence. This was also the doctrine of the Eleatics,
who nevertheless had deduced the unconditional unity and unchangeableness of the
existent, from the inconceivableness of the non-existent. If, however, non-existence
is absolutely inconceivable, then also must error, false conception, be so likewise.
First of all, therefore, the non-existent was to be discussed, and shown to have,
in some sort, an existence, while to this end existence itself had to be defined.
In the primal substance, perpetually undergoing a process of transformation,
which was assumed by the Ionian physiologists, the existent, whether understood
as duality, trinity, or plurality, cannot find place; but as little can it (with
the Eleatics) be even so much as conceived in thought as something absolutely
single and one, without any multiplicity. Such a thing would rather again coincide
with Non-existence. For a multiplicity even in appearance only to be admitted,
a multiformity of the existent must be acknowledged. Manifold existence, however,
cannot be a bare multiformity of the tangible and corporeal, nor yet a plurality
of intelligible incorporeal Essences (Ideas), which have no share either in Action
or in Passion, as Euclid and his school probably taught; since so conceived they
would be destitute of anv influence on the world of the changeable, and would
indeed themselves entirely elude our cognizance.
But as in the Theaetetus, the inconceivableness of an eternal generation,
without anything stable, had been the result arrived at, so in the Sophistes the
opposite idea is disposed of, namely, that the absolutely unchangeable existence
alone really is, and that, all change is mere appearance. Plato was obliged. therefore,
to undertake this task, -to find a Being instead of a Becoming, and vice versa,
and then to show how the manifold existences stand in relation to each other,
and to the changeable, i. e. to phenomena. Existence, Plato concludes. can of
itself consist neither in Rest nor in Motion, yet still can share in both, and
stand in reciprocal community.
But certain ideas absolutely exclude one another, as rest, for example,
excludes motion, and sameness difference. What ideas, then, are capable of being
united with each other, and what are not so, it is the part of science (dialectics)
to decide. By the discussion of the relation which the ideas of rest and motion.
of sameness and difference, hold to each other, it is explained how motion can
be the same, and not the same, how it can be thought of as being and yet not being;
consequently, how the non-existent denotes only the variations of existence, not
the bare negation of it. That existence is not at variance with becoming, and
that the latter is not conceivable apart front the former, Plato shows in the
case of the two principal parts of speech, and their reciprocal relation. From
this it becomes evident in what sense dialectics can be characterised at once
as the science of understanding, and as the science of the self-existent, as the
science of sciences. In the Phaedrus it is presented to us in the first instance
as the art of discoursing. and therewith of the true education of the soul and
of intellection. In the Sophistes it appears as the science of the true connection
of ideas; in the Philebns as the highest gift of the gods, as the true Promethean
fire; while in the Books on the Republic pure ideas, freed from all form and presupposition,
are shown to be grasped and developed by it.
In the Theaetetus simple ideas, reached only by the spontaneous activity
of thought, had presented themselves as the necessary conditions of knowledge
; in the Sophistes, the objects of knowledge come before us as a manifold existence,
containing in itself the principles of all changes. The existence of things, cognisable
only by means of conception, is their true essence, their idea. Hence the assertion
that to deny the reality of ideas is to destroy all scientific research. Plato,
it is true, departed from the original meaning of the word idea (namely, that
of form or figure) in which it had been employed by Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia,
and probably also by Democritus; inasmuch as he understood by it the unities (henases,
monades) which he at the basis of the visible, the changeable, and which can only
be reached by pure thinking (eilikriWes dianoia); but he retained the characteristic
of the intuitive and real, in opposition to the mere abstractness of ideas which
belong simply to the thinking which interposes itself. He included under the expression
idea every thing stable amidst the changes of mere phenomena, all really existing
and unchangeable definitudes, by which the changes of things and our knowledge
of them are conditioned, such as the ideas of genus and species, the laws and
ends of nature, as also the principles of cognition, and of moral action, and
the essences of individual, concrete, thinking souls. To that only which can be
conceived as an entirely formless and undetermined mass, or as a part of a whole,
or as an arbitrary relation, do no ideas whatever correspond.
But how are we to understand the existence of ideas in things? Neither
the whole conception, nor merely a part of it, can reside in the things; neither
is it enough to understand the ideas to be conceptions, which the soul beholds
together with the things (that is, as we should call them, subjectively valid
conceptions or categories), or as bare thoughts without reality. Even when viewed
as the archetypes of the changeable, they need some more distinct definition,
and some security against obvious objections. This question and the difficulties
which lie against its solution, are developed in the Parmenides, at the beginning
of the dialogue, with great acuteness. To introduce the solution to that question,
and the refitation of these difficulties, is the evident intention of the succeeding
dialectical antinomical 3 discussion of the idea of unity, as a thing being and
not being, according as it is viewed in relation to itself and to what is different.
How far Plato succeeded in separating ideas from mere abstract conceptions, and
making their reality distinct from the natural causality of motion, we cannot
here inquire. Neither can we enter into any discussions respecting the Platonic
methods of division, and of the antinomical definitions of ideas, respecting the
leading principles of these methods, and his attempt in the Cratylus to represent
words as the immediate copy of ideas, that is, of the essential in things, by
means of the fundamental parts of speech, and to point out the part which dialectics
must take in the development of language. While the foundation which Plato lays
for the doctrine of ideas or dialectics must be regarded as something finished
and complete in itself, yet the mode in which he carries it out is not by any
means beyond the reach of objections ; and we can hardly assume that it had attained
any remarkably higher development either in the mind of Plato himself, or in his
lectures, although he appears to have been continually endeavouring to grasp and
to represent the fundamental outlines of his doctrine from different points of
view, as is manifest especially from the argumentations which are preserved to
us in Aristotle's work on Plato's ideas.
That Plato, however, while he distinctly separated the region of pure
thinking or of ideas from that of sensuous perception and the world of phenomena,
did not overlook the necessity of the communion between the intelligible and the
sensible world, is abundantly manifest from the gradations which he assumes for
the development of our cognition. In the region of sense-perception, or conception,
again, he distinguishes the comprehension of imayes, and that of objects (eikasia
and pistis), while in the region of thinking he separates the knowledge of those
relations which belong indeed to thinking, but which require intuition in the
case of sensuous objects, from the immediate grasp by thought of intelligible
objects or ideas themselves, that is, of ultimate principles, devoid of all presupposition
(dianoia, nous). To the first gradation of science, that is, of the higher department
of thinking, belong principally, though not exclusively, mathematics; and that
Plato regarded them (though he did not fully realise this notion) as a necessary
means for elevating experience into scientific knowledge, is evident from hints
that occur elsewhere. The fourfold division which he brings forward, and which
is discussed in the De Republica he appears to have taken up more definitely in
his oral lectures, and in the first department to have distinguished perception
from experience (aisthesis from doxa), in the second to have distinguished mediate
knowledge from the immediate thinking consciousness of first principles.
Although, therefore, the carrying out of Plato's dialectics may be
imperfect, and by no means proportional to this excellent foundation, yet he had
certainly taken a steady view of their end, namely, to lay hold of ideas more
and more distinctly in their organic connection at once with one another and with
the phenomenal world, by the discovery of their inward relations; and then having
done this, to refer them to their ultimate basis. This ought at the same time
to verify itself as the unconditional ground of the reality of objects and of
the power we have to take cognisance of them, of Being and of Thought ; being
comparable to the intellectual sun. Now this absolutely unconditional ground Plato
describes as the idea of the good, convinced that we cannot imagine any higher
definitude than the good ; but that we must, on the contrary, measure all other
definitudes by it, and regard it as the aim and purpose of all our endeavours,
nay of all developments. Not being in a condition to grasp the idea of the good
with fill distinctness, we are able to approximate to it only so far as we elevate
the power of thinking to its original purity. Although the idea of the good, as
the ultimate basis both of the mind and of the realities laid hold of by it, of
thought and of existence, is, according to him, more elevated than that of spirit
or actual existence itself, yet we can only imagine its activity as the activity
of the mind. Through its activity the determinate natures of the ideas, which
in themselves only exist, acquire their power of causation, a power which must
be set down as spiritual, that is, free. Plato, therefore, describes the idea
of the good, or the Godhead, sometimes teleologically, as the ultimate purpose
of all conditioned existence ; sometimes cosmologically, as the ultimate operative
cause; and has begun to develope the cosmological, as also the physico-theological
proof for the being of God; but has referred both back to the idea of the Good,
as the necessary presupposition to all other ideas, and our cognition of them.
Moreover, we find him earnestly endeavouring to purify and free from its restrictions
the idea of the Godhead, to establish and defend the belief in a wise and divine
government of the world; as also to set aside the doubt that arises from the existence
of evil and suffering in the world.
But then, how does the sensuous world, the world of phenomena, come
into existence? To suppose that in his view it was nothing else than the mere
subjective appearance which springs from the commingling of the ideas, or the
confused conception of the ideas, not only contradicts the declarations of Plato
in the Philebus, but contradicts also the dualistic tendency of the whole of the
ancient philosophy. He designates as the, we may perhaps say, material ground
of the phenomenal world, that which is in itself unlimited, ever in a process
of becoming, never really caisting, the mass out of which every thing is formed,
and connects with it the idea of extension, as also of unregulated motion; attributes
to it only the joint causality of necessity, in opposition to the free causality
of ideas, which works towards ends, and, by means of his mythical conception of
the soul of the universe, seeks to fill up the chasm between these opposed primary
essences. This, standing midway between the intelligible (that to which the attribute
of sameness belongs) and the sensible (the diverse), as the principle of order
and motion in the world, according to him, comprehends in itself all the relations
of number and measure. Plato had made another attempt to fill up the gap in the
development of ideas by a symbolical representation, in the lectures he delivered
upon the Good, mentioned by Aristotle and others. In these he partly referred
ideas to intelligible numbers, in order, probably, that he might be able to denote
more definitely their relation of dependence on the Godhead, as the absolute one,
as also the relation of their succession and mutual connection; and partly described
the Godhead as the ultimate ground both of ideas and also of the material of phenomena,
inasmuch as he referred them both to the divine causality-the former immediately
as original numbers, the latter through the medium of the activity of the ideas.
But on this Pythagorean mode of exhibiting the highest principles of Plato's doctrine
we have but very imperfect information.
Both these departments which form the connecting link between Dialectics
and Physics, and the principles of Physics themselves, contain only preliminary
assumptions and hypothetical declarations, which Plato describes as a kind of
recreation from more earnest search after the really existent, as an innocent
enjoyment, a rational sport. Inasmuch as physics treat only of the changeable
and imitative, they must be contented with attaining probability but they should
aim, especially, at investigating teleologically end-causes, that is, free causality,
and showing how they converge in the realisation of the idea of the good. All
the determinations of the original undetermined matter are realised by corporeal
forms; in these forms Plato attempts to find the natural or necessary basis of
the different kinds of feeling and of sensuous perception. Throughout the whole
development, however, of his Physiology, as also in the outlines of his doctrine
on Health and Sickness, pregnant ideas and clear views are to be met with.
With the physiology of Plato his doctrine of the Soul is closely connected.
Endowed with the same nature as the soul of the world, the human soul is that
which is spontaneously active and unapproachable by death, although in its coneetion
with the body bound up with the appetitive, the sensuous; and the thumo, that
which is of the nature of affection or eager impulse, the ground of courage and
fear, love and hope, designeod, while subordinating itself to the reason, to restrain
sensuality, must be regarded as the link between the rational and the sensuous.
Another link of connection between the intellectual and sensuous nature of the
soul is referred to Lore, which, separated from concupiscent desire, is conceived
of as an inspiration that transcends mere mediate intellection, whose purpose
is to realise a perpetual striving after the immortal, the eternal; -to realise,
in a word, by a close connection with others, the Good in the form of the Beautifill.
In the Phaedrus Plato speaks of love under the veil of a myth; in the Lysis he
commences the logical definition of it ; and in the Symposium, one of the most
artistic and attractive of his dialogues, he analyses the different momeneta which
are necessary to the complete determination of the idea. In these and some of
the other dialogues, however, beauty is described as the image of the ideas, penetrating
the veil of pheomena and apprehended by the purest and brightest exercise of sense,
in relation to colours, forms, actions, and morals, as also with relation to the
harmonious combination of the Manifold into perfect Unity, and distinctly separated
from the Agreeable and the Useful. Art is celebrated as the power of producing
a whole, inspired by an invisible arrangement; of grouping together into one form
the images of the ideas, which are everywhere scattered around.
That the soul, when separated from the body -or the pure spirit- is immortal,
and that a continuance, in which power and consciousness or insight are preserved,
is secured to it, Socrates, in the Phaedo of Plato, when approaching death, endeavours
to convince his friends, partly by means of analogies drawn from the nature of
things, partly by the refutation of the opposed hypothesis, that the soul is an
harmonious union and tuning of the constituents of the body, partly by the attempt
to prove the simplicity of the essential nature of the soul, its consequent indestructibility,
and its relation to the Eternal, or its pre-existence; partly by the argumentation
that the idea of the soul is inseparable from that of life, and that it can never
be destroyed by moral evil, -the only evil to which, properly speaking, it is
subjected. Respecting the condition of the soul after death Plato expresses himself
only in myths, and his utterances respecting the Transmigration of Souls also
are expressed in a mythical form.
As a true disciple of Socrates, Plato devoted all the energy of his
soul to ethics, which again are closely connected with politics. He paves the
way for a scientific treatment of ethics by the refutation of the sophistical
sensualistic and hedonistic (selfish) theories, first of all in the Protagoras
and the three smaller dialogues attached to it (see above), then in the Gorgias,
by pointing ont the contradictions in which the assertions, on the one hand that
wrong actions are uglier than right ones but more useful, on the other that the
only right recognised by nature is that of the stronger, are involved. In this
discussion the result is deduced, that neither happiness nor virtue can consist
in the attempt to satisfy our unbridled and ever-increasing desires. In the Menon
the Good is defined as that kind of utility which can never become injurious,
and whose realisation is referred to a knowledge which is absolutely fixed and
certain, -a knowledge, however, which must be viewed as something not externally
communicable, but only to be developed from the spontaneous activity of the soul.
Lastly, in the Philebus, the investigation respecting pleasure and pain, which
was commenced in the Gorgias, as also that on the idea of the Good, is completed;
and this twofold investigation grounded upon the principles of dialectics, and
brought into relation with phys cs. Pain is referred to the disturbance of the
inward harmony, pleasure to the maintenance, or restoration of it; and it is shown
how, on the one hand, true and false, on the other, pure and mixed pleasure, are
to be distinguished, while, inasmuch as it (pleasure) is always dependent on the
activity out of which it springs, it becomes so much the truer and purer in proportion
as the activity itself becomes more elevated. In this way the first sketch of
a table of Goods is attained, in which the eternal nature of Measure, that is,
the sum and substance of the ideas, as the highest canon, and then the different
steps of the actual realisation of them in life, in a regular descending scale,
are given, while it is acknowledged that the accompaying pure (unsensuous) pleasure
is also to be regarded as a good, but inferior to that on which it depends, the
reason and the understanding, science and art. Now, if we consider that, ac cording
to Plato, all morality must be directed to the realisation of the ideas in the
phenomenal world; and, moreover, that these ideas in their reality and their activity,
as also the knowledge respecting them, is to be referred to the Godhead, we can
understand how he could designate the highest good as being an assimilation to
God.
In the Ethics of Plato the doctrine respecting virtue is attached
to that of the highest good, and its development. That virtue is essentially one,
and the science of the good, had been already deduced in the critical and dialectical
introductory dialogues; but it had been also presupposed and even hinted that,
without detriment to its unity, different phases of it could be distinguished,
and that to knowledge there must be added practice, and an earnest combating of
the sensuous functions. In order to discover these different phases, Plato goes
back upon his triple division of the faculties of the soul. Virtue, in other words,
is fitness of the soul for the operations that are peculiar to it, and it manifests
itself by means of its (the soul's) inward harmony, beauty, and health. Different
phases of virtue are distinguishable so far as the soul is not pure spirit; but
just as the spirit should rule both the other elements of the soul, so also should
wisdom, as the inn development of the spirit, rule the other virtues. Ability
of the emotive element (thumoeides), when penetrated with wisdom to govern the
whole sensuous nature, is Courage. If the sensuous or appetitive (epithumetikon)
element is brought into unity with the ends of wisdom, moderation or prudence
(sophrosune), as an inward harmony, is the result. If the inward harmony of the
activities shows itself active in giving an harmonious form to our outward relations
in the world, Virtue exerts itself in the form of Justice. That happiness coincides
with the inward harmony of virtue, is inferred from this deduction of the virtues,
as also from the discussions respecting pleasure.
If it be true that the ethico-rational nature of the individual can
only develope itself completely in a well-ordered state, then the object and constitution
of the state must perfectly answer to the moral nature of the individual, and
politics must be an essential, inseparable part of ethics. While, therefore, Plato
considers the state as the copy of a well-regulated individual life, he demands
of it that it should exhibit a perfect harmony, in which everything is common
to all, and the individual in all his relations only an organ of the state. The
entire merging of the individual life in the life of the state might have appeared
to him as the only effectual means of stemming that selfishness and licence of
the citizens, which in his time was becoming more and more predominant. Plato
deduces the three main elements of the state from the three different activities
of the soul; and just as the appetitive element should be absolutely under control,
so also the working class, which answers to it; and the military order, which
answers to the emotive element, should develope itself in thorough dependence
upon the reason, by means of gymnastics and music; and from that the governing
order, answering to the rational faculty, must proceed. The right of passing from
the rank of a guard (dulakes, to epikourikon) to that of a ruler, must be established
by the capacity for raising oneself from becoming to being, from notion to knowledge
; for the ruler ought to be in a condition to extend and confirm the government
of the reason in the state more and more, and especially to direct and watch over
training and education. Without admitting altogether the impracticability of his
state, yet Plato confesses that no realisation of it in the phenomenal world can
fully express his idea, but that an approximation to it must be aimed at by a
limitation of unconditional unity and community, adapted to circumstances. On
this account, with the view of approximating to the given circumstances, he renounces,
in his book on the Laws, that absolute separation of ranks; limits the power of
the governors, attempts to reconcile freedom with reason and unity, to mingle
monarchy with democracy ; distinguishes several classes of rulers, and will only
commit to their organically constructed body the highest power under the guarantee
of the laws.
There are numerous editions both of the entire text of Plato, and
of separate dialogues. The first was that published by Aldus at Venice, in A.
D. 1513. In this edition the dialogues are arranged in nine tetralogies, according
to the division of Thrasyllus (see above). The next edition was that published
at Basle, in 1534. It was edited chiefly by Johannes Oporinus, who was afterwards
professor of Greek in that university. It does not appear that he made use of
any manuscripts, but he succeeded in correcting many of the mistakes to be found
in the edition of Aldus, though some of his alterations were corruptions of sound
passages. The edition was, however, enriched by having incorporated with it the
commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus and the State, which had shortly before
been discovered by Simon Grynaeus in the library of the university at Oxford,
and a triple Greek index,--one of words and phrases, another of proper names,
and a third of proverbs to be found in Plato. The next edition, published at Basle
in 1556, was superintended by Marcus Hopperus, who availed himself of a collation
of some manuscripts of Plato made in Italy by Arnoldus Arlenius, and so corrected
several of the errors of the previous Basle edition, and gave a large number of
various readings; the edition of H. Stephanus (1578, in three volumes) is equally
remarkable for the careful preparation of the text, by correcting the mistakes
of copyists and typographers, and introducing in several instances very felicitous
improvements, and for the dishonesty with which the editor appropriated to himself
the labours of others without any acknowledgment, and with various tricks strove
to conceal the source from which they were derived. His various readings are taken
chiefly, if not entirely, from the second Basle edition, from the Latin version
of Ficinus, and from the notes of Cornarius. It is questionble whether he himself
collated a single manuscript. The Latin version of Serranus, which is printed
in this edition, is very bad. The occasional translations of Stephanus himself
are far better. The Bipont edition (11 vols. 8vo. A. D. 1781--1786) contains a
reprint of the text of that of Stephanus, with the Latin version of Marsilius
Ficinus. Some fresh various readings, collected by Mitscherlich, are added. It
was, however, by Immanuel Bekker that the text of Plato was first brought into
a satisfactory condition in his edition, published in 1816--18, accompanied by
the Latin version of Ficinus (here restored, generally speaking, to its original
form, the reprints of it in other previous editions of Plato containing numerous
alterations and corruptions), a critical commentary, an extensive comparison of
various readings, and the Greek scholia, previously edited by Ruhnken, with some
additions, together with copious indexes. The dialogues are arranged according
to the scheme of Schleiermacher. The Latin version in this edition has sometimes
been erroneously described as that of Wolf. A joint edition by Bekker and Wolf
was projected and commenced, but not completed. The reprint of Bekker's edition,
accompanied by the notesof Stephanus, Heindorf, Wyttenbach, &c., published by
Priestley (Lond. 1826), is a useful edition. Ast's edition (Lips. 1819--1827,
9 vols. 8vo., to which two volumes of notes on the four dialogues, Protagoras,
Phaedrus, Georgias, and Phaedo, have since been added) contains many ingenious
and excellent emendations of the text, which the editor's profound acquaintance
with the phraseology of Plato enabled him to effect. G. Stallbaum, who edited
a critical edition of the text of Plato (Lips. 1821--1825, 8 vols. 8vo. 4 , and
1826, 8 vols. 12mo.), commenced in 1827 an elaborate edition of Plato, which is
not yet quite completed. This is perhaps the best and most useful edition which
has appeared. The edition of J.G. Baiter, J. C. Orelli, and A. G. Winckelmann
(one vol. 4to. Ziirich, 1839) deserves especial mention for the accuracy of the
text and the beauty of the typography.
Of separate dialogues, or collections of dialogues, the editions are
almost endless. Those of the Cratylus and Theaetetus, of the Euthyphro, Apologia,
Crito, and Phaedo, of the Sophista, Politicus and Parmenides, and of the Philebus
and Symposium by Fischer; of the Lysis, Charmides, Hippias Major, and Phaedrus,
of the Gorgias and Theaetetus, of the Cratylus, Euthydemus and Parmenides, of
the Phaedo, and of the Protagoras and Sophistes by Heindorf (whose notes exhibit
both acuteness and sound judgment); of the Phaedo by Wyttenbach; of the Philebus,
and of the Parmenides by Stallbaum (in the edition of the latter of which the
commentary of Proclus is incorporated), are most worthy of note. Of the translations
of Plato the most celebrated is the Latin version of Marsilius Ficinus (Flor.
1483--1484, and frequently reprinted). It was in this version, which was made
from manuscripts, that the writings of Plato first appeared in a printed form.
The translation is so extremely close that it has almost the authority of a Greek
manuscript, and is of great service in ascertaining varieties of reading. This
remark, however, does not apply to the later, altered editions of it, which were
published subsequently to the appearance of the Greek text of Plato. There is
no good English translation of the whole of Plato, that by Taylor being by no
means accurate. The efforts of Floyer Sydenham were much more successful, but
he translated only a few of the pieces. There is a French translation by V. Cousin.
Schleiermacher's German translation is incomparably the best, but is unfortunately
incomplete. There is an Italian translation by Dardi Bembo. The versions of separate
dialogues in different languages are too numerous to be noticed.
We have space to notice only the following out of the very numerous
works written in illustration of Plato: -- Pltonis Dialogorum Argumenta Exposita
et Illustrata, by Tiedemann (Bip. 1786); System der Platonischen Philosophie,
by Tennemann (4 vols. 8vo. Leipz. 1792--5); Initia Philosophiae Platonicae, by
P. G. Van Heusde (ed. ii. Lugd. Bat. 1842); Platons Leben und Schriften, by G.
A. F. Ast (Leipz. 1816); Geschichte und System der Platonischen Philosophic, by
C. F. Hermann (Heidelb. 1838); Platonis de Ideis et Numeris Doctrina ea Aristotele
illustrata, by F. A. Trendelenburg (Lips. 1826); Platonische Studien, by E. Zeller
(Tubing. 1839). There are also numerous smaller treatises by Bockh, C. F. Hermann,
Stallbaum, &c., which may be consulted with profit. Schleiermacher's introductions
to some of the dialogues have been translated and published in a separate form
in English.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Πληροφορίες Σύνταξης
Τα ηλεκτρονικά κείμενα των έργων του Πλάτωνα παρατίθενται στην Ελλάδα (αρχαία χώρα) στην κατηγορία Αρχαία Ελληνική Γραμματεία.
Λάβετε το καθημερινό newsletter με τα πιο σημαντικά νέα της τουριστικής βιομηχανίας.
Εγγραφείτε τώρα!