thinkthinkfeel
Jun. 24th, 2005 09:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kimberkitSo, a rambly, chatty post. I've been reading Sophie's World lately (it was popular years ago, and essentially it's a story of the history of some of the major philosophers). I'm just up to the section on Plato.
Now, when I first read Plato's Republic, at age 16, I thought that Plato must have been a completely totalitarian fascist. He wanted a world ruled by the intelligentsia -- because it was only the intelligent who could perceive ideal forms, and who could rule wisely. Er, to back up for a second, the idea is that everything has an ideal form -- that somewhere, in looking at a flower, there must be an ideal conception of a flower. In looking at hundreds of gingerbread cookies, there must be an ideal shape for a gingerbread cookie.
Coming back to Plato now, though, I'm not so sure he's completely off his rocker about ideal forms. Surely there must be an ideal, if different, shape for different humans; surely there exists a perfect shape for what things should be.
I guess the problem for me, back then and now, is that I wonder whether we can really find that ideal shape purely through intellect. How can it be that only philosophers think that there's an ideal? How can only philosophers have a monopoly on how the world should run? A carpenter, shaping things every day with his hands, surely knows that there is an ideal shape for whatever it is he's making. And the same with other trades. I think we find our ideals by searching with our hearts, and with practice and interaction with the world.
I'm sure I'm going to get corrected by someone-or-other on my facts. Fire away, people :)
Now, when I first read Plato's Republic, at age 16, I thought that Plato must have been a completely totalitarian fascist. He wanted a world ruled by the intelligentsia -- because it was only the intelligent who could perceive ideal forms, and who could rule wisely. Er, to back up for a second, the idea is that everything has an ideal form -- that somewhere, in looking at a flower, there must be an ideal conception of a flower. In looking at hundreds of gingerbread cookies, there must be an ideal shape for a gingerbread cookie.
Coming back to Plato now, though, I'm not so sure he's completely off his rocker about ideal forms. Surely there must be an ideal, if different, shape for different humans; surely there exists a perfect shape for what things should be.
I guess the problem for me, back then and now, is that I wonder whether we can really find that ideal shape purely through intellect. How can it be that only philosophers think that there's an ideal? How can only philosophers have a monopoly on how the world should run? A carpenter, shaping things every day with his hands, surely knows that there is an ideal shape for whatever it is he's making. And the same with other trades. I think we find our ideals by searching with our hearts, and with practice and interaction with the world.
I'm sure I'm going to get corrected by someone-or-other on my facts. Fire away, people :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 10:38 pm (UTC)I also disagree with the ideal on principle, but arguing the inverse position (which I do from time to time) does lead towards denying the existence of things like physical laws.
Of course, I think it's questionable how seriously The Republic is intended. Socrates always liked taking logic as far afield as possible, and there are a number of very bizarre conclusions reached in that book. It's been a couple years since I've read it, so I can't quite quote all of them off-hand, but the "noble lie" and the banishment of most of the arts seem nearly satiric (particularly given Plato's own obsession with Homer).