Plato (c.428-347 BCE)
The process-based empirical thinking of Heraclitus and Epicurus did not become of mainstream interest and influence until the modern era. By way of contrast to their thinking I want to share some thoughts about Plato – a philosopher who has exerted an enormous influence on the development of European Western thought. I’ll focus on a particular aspect of his theories – Platonic Idealism – to emphasise how different his views are to those of Heraclitus and Epicurus. Note that Plato also had a profound influence on the Christian theology of Augustine – and thence on western Christianity as a whole.
IDEALISM
In its strict philosophical sense, idealism is the ‘…theory that the only things which exist are minds or mental states or both.’ For example, for the Anglo-Irish philosopher, Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) ‘the world consists of the infinite mind of God, the finite minds that he has created, and… the ideas possessed or experienced by these minds. For Berkeley there are no material things that exist independently of minds.’ (Bullock & Trombley, 1999, p.412) In other words, all the objects and material things in the universe are somehow secondary to, and dependent upon, the minds that apprehend or imagine these things. However surprising, extreme and counter-intuitive this may seem, this is the view taken by philosophical Idealism. The later German philosopher, Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) articulates a version of idealism that differs from Berkeley’s, ‘in holding that there is only one true mind, the absolute, or Spirit, of which finite minds are dependent fragments…’ (ibid) According to Hegel there is only one universal mind or spirit, and human minds are if you like, small facets, of this universal Absolute Spirit. Whereas, for Berkeley, finite human minds, though created by God, do have a separate existence from God. (Bullock & Trombley, 1999, p.412)
PLATONIC IDEALISM
According to Antony Flew, for Plato, ‘The term ‘Idea’ is equivalent to the term ‘eidos,’ which means, ‘form.’ Both are connected with the Greek word ‘idein’ (to see). So, an idea (or Idea) is something that is seen – but seen by a kind of intellectual vision.’ (Flew 1984) But what is an Idea? For Plato, Ideas (or Ideals) are ‘pure’ or ‘perfect’ forms that exist independent of human agency in a transcendent realm that we could call ‘ultimate reality’. Plato argues that Ideal Forms are unchanging over time and in relation to any individual’s viewpoint. A geometrical circle, defined by an equation, constitutes an unchanging and universal ‘idea’ – whereas the circle I draw in my notebook, or the circle formed by the edge of my cup are only relatively circular. The drawn circle and the rim of my cup have imperfections and appear to change in shape depending on our angle of viewing them. Plato takes this relativity to be subordinate to the eternal transcendent world of the Ideal circle.
So, for Plato, everything in the material human world, the world of appearances, or everyday ‘reality,’ is a kind of pale imitation, shadow or echo of the world of Ideal Forms – which constitutes the primary reality. Our perspective on things is always incomplete and relative. Our everyday world is a kind of illusion compared to the ‘reality’ of the Ideal. Hence, Plato’s preference for those aspects of human thinking that come closest to the Ideal realm: rational thought, mathematics and geometry.
Plato has been enormously influential (upon Christianity, Medieval scholasticism, Renaissance thinking and on later philosophers like Kant, Berkeley, Hegel, et al). This tradition has tended to place value on geometry, mathematics, rationality, logical discourse, universals, essentialism and reductivism – all of which can be seen as exemplifying Platonic Ideals/Ideas/Forms. This way of thinking, which typifies the dominant strand of Western philosophy from the Ancient Greeks to the second half of the 19th Century, tends to be highly dualistic. The mind is separated from, and valued above, the body. Rationality is valued above intuition; logic above the illogical; thinking above feeling; the abstract and general above the concrete and specific; the absolute above the actual; perfect over imperfect; mind over matter; essence over appearance; the infinite over the finite; certainty over uncertainty, transcendent and universal ‘truth’ over conditional truths; and so on.
Returning to Friedrich Hegel, one of the most influential of German philosophers, it is worth noting that in his hands Idealism takes on a very particular resonance. In Hegel’s view the only true ‘reality’ is the reality of the Whole. Separateness is an illusion. Parts only make sense insofar as they are considered aspects of the whole. Only the whole truth is the truth! Hegel called the whole the ABSOLUTE. He also considered Reality (the Absolute) to be logical – it could never be self-contradictory. There is no room for contradiction, absurdity or irrationality.
Hegel’s thought led him to argue for the supremacy of the state over the individual in that the state more closely resembled the Absolute. If he had been a catholic, ‘church’ would no doubt have replaced state in his scheme of things. Many have argued that this viewpoint can easily lead to authoritarianism and to anti-democratic modes of politics. Plato’s influence on Christianity, via Augustine and others, can be seen as giving rise to a profound split between Mind and Body, Heaven and Hell, virtue and sin, and so on – very black and white dualism. It can also be seen as leading to the valuing of the spirit or mind, and heaven, over the senses, the pleasures of the body, and this earth and our life here and now.
Note how profoundly different Plato’s philosophy of unchanging, transcendent, dualistic, ideals, is to the process-based, non-dualist, relational thinking of Gotama Buddha – as put forward in early Buddhist texts.
NB Note that there are big questions surrounding these ideas. For instance, if Plato’s Ideal Forms are absolute and transcendent how can we mere humans have any knowledge of them? How can we flawed, imperfect, embodied, and, at times, irrational beings have access to the unconditional perfect realm of the Ideal? How can we finite mortals even imagine the eternal reality of the Ideal? What do you think?
Bibliography
Bullock, A. & Trombley, S. 1999. The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. London: HarperCollins.
Burnet, John. 1971. Early Greek Philosophy. London: Adam & Charles Black.
Flew, Antony, ed. 1984. A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books, 1984.
Monk, R. & Raphael, F. eds. 2000. The Great Philosophers: From Socrates to Turing. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.