What do you think?
Rate this book
Uczta, Polityk, Sofista, Eutyfron
Platon jest chyba najsłynniejszym filozofem w dziejach. Pochodzący ze znakomitej rodziny, starannie wychowany i wykształcony, obeznany ze światem dzięki podróżom - ten złoty grecki młodzieniec związał się z enfant terrible ateńskiej agory, brzydkim, złośliwym i mądrym Sokratesem. Po wykonaniu na nim wyroku śmierci, który wstrząsnął Platonem nie tylko jako uczniem i przyjacielem, lecz także jako obywatelem oceniającym ateńską demokrację, Platon wyjechał z Aten na 12 lat. Po powrocie założył Akademię, w której kształcił największe umysły swych czasów.
Dialogi Platona są swego rodzaju przetworzonym wspomnieniem dyskusji, z jakimi filozof na co dzień spotykał się, przebywając w towarzystwie Sokratesa. Są jednak również wyrazem i świadectwem czegoś więcej: dialogicznego ducha starożytnych Greków. Istotne okazują się tu zarówno poszczególne zagadnienia, rozkładane w dyskusji na czynniki pierwsze, jak i sam proces myślenia rozmówców, wydobyty i obnażony przez postać Sokratesa. W bardzo teatralnej Uczcie mowa o kolejnych niuansach związanych z odwiecznym problemem miłości. Razem z Eutyfronem zastanawiamy się, czym są sprawy boskie. Podglądamy starcie Sokratesa z mistrzami dyskusji, sofistami. Odkrywamy wreszcie, czym naprawdę zajmuje się polityk. Każdy z tych dialogów stawia czytelnikowi przed oczami grecki świat jak żywy.
Dialogi Platona są swego rodzaju przetworzonym wspomnieniem dyskusji, z jakimi filozof na co dzień spotykał się, przebywając w towarzystwie Sokratesa. Są jednak również wyrazem i świadectwem czegoś więcej: dialogicznego ducha starożytnych Greków. Istotne okazują się tu zarówno poszczególne zagadnienia, rozkładane w dyskusji na czynniki pierwsze, jak i sam proces myślenia rozmówców, wydobyty i obnażony przez postać Sokratesa. W bardzo teatralnej Uczcie mowa o kolejnych niuansach związanych z odwiecznym problemem miłości. Razem z Eutyfronem zastanawiamy się, czym są sprawy boskie. Podglądamy starcie Sokratesa z mistrzami dyskusji, sofistami. Odkrywamy wreszcie, czym naprawdę zajmuje się polityk. Każdy z tych dialogów stawia czytelnikowi przed oczami grecki świat jak żywy.
358 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 2010
About the author
Plato
5,197 books8,838 followersPlato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 11, 2019
My 2018 reading from the Great Philosophers series from Gazeta Wyborcza. I've also read:
* 2015: Seneca's Moral letters to Lucilius
* 2016: Aristotle's Protrepticus and Physics
* 2017: Aristotle's Great Ethics and Poetics
* 2019: Plato's Republic
~~~
Looming over Plato's dialogues is the specter of Socrates' death at the hands of his own countrymen. Even as the speakers toss around abstract definitions it's hard not to feel an air of menace, or to read Socrates' wit as gallows humor.
The Polish translator's introduction is remarkable, with a "psychological sketch" of Socrates' childhood, life, personality, and relationship with his younger student Plato. Socrates could be rather cruel, mocking people around him and tricking them into publicly-stated contradictions, in order to show their foolishness and puff up his own superiority complex. I had always thought of "the Socratic method" as a sincere, gentle way to help earnest students learn---not as a mean-spirited game played to score points against opponents in the public forum. I don't know how much artistic license was taken here... but if it's accurate, it would explain why the citizens of Athens wanted to get rid of Socrates!
This sketch also posits that Socrates actually sought out his death sentence. This wise-guy gadfly, who was always in command of himself, couldn't bear to be seen as a weak, frail old man needing others' help. Better to goad your fellow citizens into condemning you, so you can go out with a flash while you still have all your faculties. I hadn't thought about the story this way before.
~~~
Symposium -- Uczta
Just reading the Symposium itself left me fairly confused, but again the translator's note gives some guidance.
On the surface, it's just a bunch of Greek dudes sitting around at a toga party & taking turns to praise Eros, the god of love. Much of the banter is genuinely funny (as are the hiccup remedies). But there's also a fair bit of uncomfortable discussion about pederasty (sexual relationships between a boy and a man -- apparently the term comes directly from the Symposium), and a lot of over-the-top fanboy praise for Socrates, and not much that "looks like" deep philosophical reflection.
But apparently:
* Part of the value of reading this is literary, not philosophical. Plato's characters were real historical figures, but he puts them in distinct roles with distinctive voices, which come across in their theatrical monologues and dialogues that play off each other. Apart from the variety of characters (goofy, pompous, emotional, etc.), the translator's note breaks up the structure of the dialogue into several acts. It is indeed well-written---even if this went over my head at first reading, Plato is a hell of a lot more fun to read than Aristotle.
* The praise of pederasty isn't necessarily meant to be taken at face value. The translator's note suggests Plato puts some of this praise in the mouth of the less-credible characters, in order to show the author actually *doesn't* agree with creepy older dudes making sexual advances at kids. On the other hand, he seems perfectly fine with old guys intimately loving younger dudes in general; he just doesn't like the blatant creepers who give the whole thing a bad name. (Sounds like perhaps Greek women at this time were *not* expected or allowed to play the role of conversational companion---no such thing as a girlfriend, just a wife to keep the house while the man goes to toga parties---so if you wanted an admiring pal to hang out with, it had to be a guy.) I have to admit I really can't follow the nuance here... but Plato's concern about the creepers seems to be merely that sexual love isn't as great as Platonic love (more on that below) for *anyone*, and he's not concerned about the issue of *consent* between adults and kids. Ugh.
* The fanboy praise of Socrates is intentional. Plato truly looked up adoringly to his teacher, though perhaps it's slightly tongue-in-cheek? It's not enough to have every character joke about how Socrates' speech will beat the others, nor to give Socrates the best speech... No, Plato also tacks on a coda where a drunk guy stumbles in, interrupts the party's game of praising Eros, and gives a praise of Socrates instead. Over the top, but cute.
As for the philosophy itself, Plato used his dialogues as a vehicle to present his own views through the mouths of others. Perhaps he was just making fun of other Greeks and their views in the earlier parts of this dialogue, but near the end when Socrates relates what he learned from Diotima, that seems to be Plato's own view of love / Eros. The act of love is all about creation, about fertilizing (inseminating?) that which is beautiful, not just in body but in soul. Everything changes; we mortals can't achieve immortality by being one constant thing---but we can do it by leaving something young and new behind us as we age and pass on. (And indeed, so Plato left us his own rendition of his teacher Socrates, lending him a kind of immortality...) As we progress we move from loving beautiful people's bodies, to their minds & souls, to nature, to Beauty itself. (This seems to be the root of the term Platonic love, although I thought that meant love between two people that just isn't sexual, while Plato seems to go beyond love between two people and onto a more abstract level.)
But! As a new dad, it's hard for me to agree that only ideas are beautiful and worthwhile. Plato is dismissive of folks who want to achieve immortality and memory "merely" by having kids; he favors those who create great ideas or tell brilliant stories like Homer and Hesiodos. But this stance comes during an argument about the importance of creating works together as part of a pair---yet his examples are all praised as solo artists. Where's the team effort there? And also: "...only at this step of the ladder is life finally worthwhile: when you observe beauty itself." Dude---holding your newborn baby or watching your infant smile are moments of sheer unadulterated beauty! Did these ancient Greek dudes ever hold a baby, or did they all run off to the agora as soon as they could?
~~~
Statesman -- Polityk
This dialogue is ostensibly about defining what it means to be a statesman/king. Plato's approach to definitions, diairesis, makes for an interesting statistical-algorithm idea:
Build a binary tree classifier, where *every* split is balanced. Try to have a similar amount down both branches every time you split. Never allow a tiny overfitting branch vs a broad "everything else" branch, even when it seems obvious how to jump there directly.
In this example, trying to define statesmanship, Plato says you can't start with something like "the skill of ruling over other humans" and refine it from there... No, you have to say there are practical skills vs theoretical skills, and statesmanship is theoretical. Next, the theoretical skills can be split into evaluating work vs giving orders, and statesmanship is among the latter. Then, among the skillsets which are focused on giving orders, those can be split into *passing along* orders from someone else (like heralds) vs *deciding* what the orders should be (like a statesman). And so on...
Plato seems to value this approach because you're learning about *everything* at once: not just "What is a statesman?" but also what a statesman *isn't*, and how & why other things fall out of that category, and you can come up with definitions for the rest of the universe all at the same time. He has a lovely metaphor about cutting cloth (there are quite a few textile metaphors here): We don't want to cut off a small part from the whole. "Such thin slices are dangerous; it's safer to go through the middle when you are cutting, and that makes it easier to hit on clear concepts. And that's our only goal in such research." For instance, don't separate all humans into two groups as Greeks vs Barbarians (everyone else); it leads to false sense that we understand barbarians as one common group, even though it's a complete hodgepodge.
On the other hand, he makes a lot of sharp distinctions between closely inter-related professions, such as the person who makes wool vs the one who makes clothes from that wool. What's up with Plato's insistence on clear-cut distinctions and suppression of overlapping skillsets? Is this Platonic tradition why we are arguing about the definitions of Statistics vs Data Science today?
(I *really* like Plato's insistence on avoiding us-vs-them mentalities. However, his algorithm seems like a wrongheaded way to build a binary tree-based classifier from statistical data. But it's hard for me to pinpoint exactly why. I tried tinkering with it on the classic Mushroom dataset, with a ton of categorical attributes about mushroom species to be classified as poisonous or edible. If most mushrooms were edible and only a few poisonous, Plato would want to choose a variable which splits the dataset into two equal halves: one containing only edible mushrooms (so we ignore it further), the other containing some edible and some poisonous. Continue making splits, discarding various types of edible mushrooms & leaving only poisonous ones behind. Unfortunately... the dataset is already almost balanced---about half the species there are poisonous---and no single variable predicts this outcome well. So Plato's method doesn't apply here, I'm afraid, though it might for other (esp. multicategory) classification problems.)
All well and good, but it gets tedious after a while. Even our dialogue's supporting character starts sounding tired, while the main speaker just keeps on going: "Yes, yes, you've really defined a statesman thoroughly, how wonderful, we must be totally done by now!" "Thanks! But just in case, let me explain it *even more thoroughly...*" And then we get to one particularly jarring part, where the main speaker goes off on a long tangent---and then defends himself aggressively: I never worry that my off-topic rambling is boring or irrelevant! If someone praises brevity and getting-to-the-point, the onus is on *them* to prove that my listeners would be better educated by a shorter lecture---I'll just keep rambling until then! Whoa, dude, chill out.
Then, he finally starts digging into politics, and we really go off the rails. His argument rests on claiming that laws are willfully-stupid oversimplifications, and we'd be much better off with a wise philosopher-king who makes the right decision in each individual case instead of having to follow the broadly-stated laws. But there's a bias-variance tradeoff here. Such kings don't exist, and the (moderate bias) impartial rule of law protects us from the (high variance) power-hungry despots that we usually get in practice.
Worse still, he insists that one wise king making wise decisions for other people *by force*, even against their will, is a better political system than a democracy where the wise guy has to convince others through debate. Dude---how do you always *know* what's better for others? And aren't freedom & self-determination their own valuable goods? Plato has a really low opinion of his fellow democratic citizens, though he does admit democracy is minimax (although the best democracy isn't as nice as a really good aristocracy or kingship, the worst democracy isn't nearly as bad as a really bad oligarchy or tyranny).
Finally, even if you miraculously find a wise philosopher-king, how do you staff the rest of the chain of command? Plato has a deterministic view of inborn personality types: Only a few are born capable of ruling, of high office, of really understanding philosophy. Out of these chosen few, some are more cautious and moderate, while others are more courageous go-getters. Find some of each and make them work on teams---there's value in having both types collaborate. (That part I like, even if I've found it tricky in practice.) But how to find them? Watch kids on the playground to figure out their personalities, & segregate them for appropriate training. Sounds a bit like Brave New World. And if that's not enough, actively meddle in marriages, forcing together couples of opposite types, to breed moderate versions of each of the two types. Wow.
I get the sense that Plato here was writing out his frustration and anger over the death of Socrates. Perhaps he feels that Athenian democracy first stifled Socrates' talk of alternatives, then brutally shut it down. And indeed, that was a dark day. But sometimes this reads as though Plato and Socrates were the ancient Greek equivalent of internet trolls---a couple of opinionated dudes whose caustic I-know-better-than-you forum comments just happened to survive the millennia and become founding documents of Western civilization. Mind blown.
Finally, a few fun moments:
* NERD ALERT---a ridiculous geometry joke. We can split mammals into two types: those like a diagonal, vs those like the diagonal of a square on the diagonal! Why? Because the diagonal on a 1 ft by 1 ft square is length sqrt(2) ft, so it's the side of a *two foot* square; and that square's diagonal is itself the side of a *four foot* square! So we have two-legged and four-legged mammals! Get it? Ah... Gotta love ancient Greek math nerd jokes.
* When Plato goes off-topic, we'd say in English he "loses the thread." Here this happens around the time Plato is talking about the warp and woof (or weft) on a loom. And I just realized that in Polish, the equivalent phrase for going off-topic translates to saying he "loses the woof" :P This is gonna be my new favorite idiom for rambling: "Get to the point, you're losing the woof!"
~~~
Sophist -- Sofista
As in the Statesman, Plato's "Guest" shows off a Socratic dialogue with a yes-man, this time trying to pin down what Sophists are. Somehow this one was more fun to read than the Statesman. Perhaps it's because the yes-man here, Theaetetus, actually interjects his own ideas sometimes. He also has a bit more spunk than Junior Socrates did above, with quips like: "You sure demand quick insights! With more time I might get it, but I don't see it at the moment." I can relate, yo.
But who *were* sophists? They sound a bit like life coaches: they hunt for paying customers who want a sophist to train them: build up their characters, polish their souls, and exercise their debating skills. Except Plato paints them more as demagogues or charlatans: not actually knowing about justice etc., but tricking naive folks into thinking they know. And they also sound a bit like internet trolls: starting arguments just to get a rise out of someone, sowing discord, and counting it as a win when their opponent admits confusion---not when they've actually reached an insight.
On this last count, Plato is pretty upset that sophists *pretend* to be knowledgeable and wise but really are just smart-aleck devil's advocates. In contrast, Plato's very proud of his own method for reaching the truth, i.e. the same binary-tree-approach as in the Statesman. (At one point he seems to claim it's not just a *path* to knowledge, but that his structure is knowledge *itself*?) And indeed he puts it to good use here: At first, Sophists show up in several different branches even though they're supposed to be in just one. That fact in itself means Sophists are hard to define and we should be particularly careful. But we keep applying Plato's technique and eventually pin them down.
(Plus: "When someone presents himself as an expert in many skills, but goes by a name taken from one skill, there is something unhealthy about this..." Why hello, Data Scientists!)
Now, Plato worries sophists will defend themselves by saying there's no such thing as falsehoods. (It smacks of "alternative facts." Such a shame when current events show up in ancient texts. Sad!) To deal with this, at one point we do get bogged down for a long time in defining being and non-being. I lost my taste for these matters while reading Aristotle. But I agree when Plato seems to say the confusion is caused mostly by ambiguous language, much like the old chestnut: "Nothing is better than eternal happiness. And a ham sandwich is better than nothing. So, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness!" ... where the 1st "nothing" is really "no thing" and not the same as the 2nd "nothing."
I do like Plato's own description of his pedagogy: People won't want to learn something they think they already know. But if you ask them enough questions which they answer confidently, and show those answers contradict each other, you'll get them to face their misconceptions and be open to learning. I like that... except for Plato's stance that this approach *shames* people and that that's a good thing. That seemed to be Socrates' approach, but I don't think that public shaming is the right framing for today's classrooms.
And even Plato later agrees. When Theaetetus admits he's "still one of those who stand far away" (and cannot see clearly the false imitations the sophist is presenting), the Guest responds: "That's why we here will try to bring you to the truth as closely and painlessly as possible."
Finally, I *love* what seems to be a claim that philosophy is *inherently* social. We can't do philosophy without verbalizing our thoughts, says Plato; and we can't do that without having a mutual understanding of concepts. So, thinking-deep-thoughts solo isn't good enough: you need to work on building a common, shared understanding with others. What a great contrast to today's vision of a lone genius, writing brilliant papers in his office with the door shut. (And Epicurus had the same idea of philosophy as "a quiet exchange of words among friends in a garden".)
So... I need to start a philosophy reading club to go through these books with me!
~~~
Euthyphro -- Eutyfron
Short, pithy, funny banter... and depressing psychological insights. I would suggest this one as a great starting point for reading Plato. Socrates is bitter that some punk has called him to court for impiety and corrupting Athens' youth, with a possible death sentence looming, when all he's ever tried to do is sharpen young minds. On the way, adding insult to injury, he meets the puffed-up, overconfident, religious fanatic Eutyphro. E is taking his own father to court, certain that the gods see him as being in the right. S can't help himself and asks E to define piety and religious virtue, leading him into self-contradictions... until E excuses himself and runs away, while S heckles him in gleeful mock-disappointment.
Translator points out that S was disappointed in "experts" who couldn't define their own domains, & wished the masses were at least *led* by self-aware men who understood the nature of what they do. (Oh boy, they'd have a field day with Statistics, Data Science, and the Liberal Arts!)
S's best definition of piety is doing good for one's fellow men because the gods will it. By contrast, he sees impiety not as ignoring the gods, but as doing *ill* to others because the gods will it. Again, foreshadows S's own fate at the hands of his "pious" fellow citizens... Alas!
* 2015: Seneca's Moral letters to Lucilius
* 2016: Aristotle's Protrepticus and Physics
* 2017: Aristotle's Great Ethics and Poetics
* 2019: Plato's Republic
~~~
Looming over Plato's dialogues is the specter of Socrates' death at the hands of his own countrymen. Even as the speakers toss around abstract definitions it's hard not to feel an air of menace, or to read Socrates' wit as gallows humor.
The Polish translator's introduction is remarkable, with a "psychological sketch" of Socrates' childhood, life, personality, and relationship with his younger student Plato. Socrates could be rather cruel, mocking people around him and tricking them into publicly-stated contradictions, in order to show their foolishness and puff up his own superiority complex. I had always thought of "the Socratic method" as a sincere, gentle way to help earnest students learn---not as a mean-spirited game played to score points against opponents in the public forum. I don't know how much artistic license was taken here... but if it's accurate, it would explain why the citizens of Athens wanted to get rid of Socrates!
This sketch also posits that Socrates actually sought out his death sentence. This wise-guy gadfly, who was always in command of himself, couldn't bear to be seen as a weak, frail old man needing others' help. Better to goad your fellow citizens into condemning you, so you can go out with a flash while you still have all your faculties. I hadn't thought about the story this way before.
~~~
Symposium -- Uczta
Just reading the Symposium itself left me fairly confused, but again the translator's note gives some guidance.
On the surface, it's just a bunch of Greek dudes sitting around at a toga party & taking turns to praise Eros, the god of love. Much of the banter is genuinely funny (as are the hiccup remedies). But there's also a fair bit of uncomfortable discussion about pederasty (sexual relationships between a boy and a man -- apparently the term comes directly from the Symposium), and a lot of over-the-top fanboy praise for Socrates, and not much that "looks like" deep philosophical reflection.
But apparently:
* Part of the value of reading this is literary, not philosophical. Plato's characters were real historical figures, but he puts them in distinct roles with distinctive voices, which come across in their theatrical monologues and dialogues that play off each other. Apart from the variety of characters (goofy, pompous, emotional, etc.), the translator's note breaks up the structure of the dialogue into several acts. It is indeed well-written---even if this went over my head at first reading, Plato is a hell of a lot more fun to read than Aristotle.
* The praise of pederasty isn't necessarily meant to be taken at face value. The translator's note suggests Plato puts some of this praise in the mouth of the less-credible characters, in order to show the author actually *doesn't* agree with creepy older dudes making sexual advances at kids. On the other hand, he seems perfectly fine with old guys intimately loving younger dudes in general; he just doesn't like the blatant creepers who give the whole thing a bad name. (Sounds like perhaps Greek women at this time were *not* expected or allowed to play the role of conversational companion---no such thing as a girlfriend, just a wife to keep the house while the man goes to toga parties---so if you wanted an admiring pal to hang out with, it had to be a guy.) I have to admit I really can't follow the nuance here... but Plato's concern about the creepers seems to be merely that sexual love isn't as great as Platonic love (more on that below) for *anyone*, and he's not concerned about the issue of *consent* between adults and kids. Ugh.
* The fanboy praise of Socrates is intentional. Plato truly looked up adoringly to his teacher, though perhaps it's slightly tongue-in-cheek? It's not enough to have every character joke about how Socrates' speech will beat the others, nor to give Socrates the best speech... No, Plato also tacks on a coda where a drunk guy stumbles in, interrupts the party's game of praising Eros, and gives a praise of Socrates instead. Over the top, but cute.
As for the philosophy itself, Plato used his dialogues as a vehicle to present his own views through the mouths of others. Perhaps he was just making fun of other Greeks and their views in the earlier parts of this dialogue, but near the end when Socrates relates what he learned from Diotima, that seems to be Plato's own view of love / Eros. The act of love is all about creation, about fertilizing (inseminating?) that which is beautiful, not just in body but in soul. Everything changes; we mortals can't achieve immortality by being one constant thing---but we can do it by leaving something young and new behind us as we age and pass on. (And indeed, so Plato left us his own rendition of his teacher Socrates, lending him a kind of immortality...) As we progress we move from loving beautiful people's bodies, to their minds & souls, to nature, to Beauty itself. (This seems to be the root of the term Platonic love, although I thought that meant love between two people that just isn't sexual, while Plato seems to go beyond love between two people and onto a more abstract level.)
But! As a new dad, it's hard for me to agree that only ideas are beautiful and worthwhile. Plato is dismissive of folks who want to achieve immortality and memory "merely" by having kids; he favors those who create great ideas or tell brilliant stories like Homer and Hesiodos. But this stance comes during an argument about the importance of creating works together as part of a pair---yet his examples are all praised as solo artists. Where's the team effort there? And also: "...only at this step of the ladder is life finally worthwhile: when you observe beauty itself." Dude---holding your newborn baby or watching your infant smile are moments of sheer unadulterated beauty! Did these ancient Greek dudes ever hold a baby, or did they all run off to the agora as soon as they could?
~~~
Statesman -- Polityk
This dialogue is ostensibly about defining what it means to be a statesman/king. Plato's approach to definitions, diairesis, makes for an interesting statistical-algorithm idea:
Build a binary tree classifier, where *every* split is balanced. Try to have a similar amount down both branches every time you split. Never allow a tiny overfitting branch vs a broad "everything else" branch, even when it seems obvious how to jump there directly.
In this example, trying to define statesmanship, Plato says you can't start with something like "the skill of ruling over other humans" and refine it from there... No, you have to say there are practical skills vs theoretical skills, and statesmanship is theoretical. Next, the theoretical skills can be split into evaluating work vs giving orders, and statesmanship is among the latter. Then, among the skillsets which are focused on giving orders, those can be split into *passing along* orders from someone else (like heralds) vs *deciding* what the orders should be (like a statesman). And so on...
Plato seems to value this approach because you're learning about *everything* at once: not just "What is a statesman?" but also what a statesman *isn't*, and how & why other things fall out of that category, and you can come up with definitions for the rest of the universe all at the same time. He has a lovely metaphor about cutting cloth (there are quite a few textile metaphors here): We don't want to cut off a small part from the whole. "Such thin slices are dangerous; it's safer to go through the middle when you are cutting, and that makes it easier to hit on clear concepts. And that's our only goal in such research." For instance, don't separate all humans into two groups as Greeks vs Barbarians (everyone else); it leads to false sense that we understand barbarians as one common group, even though it's a complete hodgepodge.
On the other hand, he makes a lot of sharp distinctions between closely inter-related professions, such as the person who makes wool vs the one who makes clothes from that wool. What's up with Plato's insistence on clear-cut distinctions and suppression of overlapping skillsets? Is this Platonic tradition why we are arguing about the definitions of Statistics vs Data Science today?
(I *really* like Plato's insistence on avoiding us-vs-them mentalities. However, his algorithm seems like a wrongheaded way to build a binary tree-based classifier from statistical data. But it's hard for me to pinpoint exactly why. I tried tinkering with it on the classic Mushroom dataset, with a ton of categorical attributes about mushroom species to be classified as poisonous or edible. If most mushrooms were edible and only a few poisonous, Plato would want to choose a variable which splits the dataset into two equal halves: one containing only edible mushrooms (so we ignore it further), the other containing some edible and some poisonous. Continue making splits, discarding various types of edible mushrooms & leaving only poisonous ones behind. Unfortunately... the dataset is already almost balanced---about half the species there are poisonous---and no single variable predicts this outcome well. So Plato's method doesn't apply here, I'm afraid, though it might for other (esp. multicategory) classification problems.)
All well and good, but it gets tedious after a while. Even our dialogue's supporting character starts sounding tired, while the main speaker just keeps on going: "Yes, yes, you've really defined a statesman thoroughly, how wonderful, we must be totally done by now!" "Thanks! But just in case, let me explain it *even more thoroughly...*" And then we get to one particularly jarring part, where the main speaker goes off on a long tangent---and then defends himself aggressively: I never worry that my off-topic rambling is boring or irrelevant! If someone praises brevity and getting-to-the-point, the onus is on *them* to prove that my listeners would be better educated by a shorter lecture---I'll just keep rambling until then! Whoa, dude, chill out.
Then, he finally starts digging into politics, and we really go off the rails. His argument rests on claiming that laws are willfully-stupid oversimplifications, and we'd be much better off with a wise philosopher-king who makes the right decision in each individual case instead of having to follow the broadly-stated laws. But there's a bias-variance tradeoff here. Such kings don't exist, and the (moderate bias) impartial rule of law protects us from the (high variance) power-hungry despots that we usually get in practice.
Worse still, he insists that one wise king making wise decisions for other people *by force*, even against their will, is a better political system than a democracy where the wise guy has to convince others through debate. Dude---how do you always *know* what's better for others? And aren't freedom & self-determination their own valuable goods? Plato has a really low opinion of his fellow democratic citizens, though he does admit democracy is minimax (although the best democracy isn't as nice as a really good aristocracy or kingship, the worst democracy isn't nearly as bad as a really bad oligarchy or tyranny).
Finally, even if you miraculously find a wise philosopher-king, how do you staff the rest of the chain of command? Plato has a deterministic view of inborn personality types: Only a few are born capable of ruling, of high office, of really understanding philosophy. Out of these chosen few, some are more cautious and moderate, while others are more courageous go-getters. Find some of each and make them work on teams---there's value in having both types collaborate. (That part I like, even if I've found it tricky in practice.) But how to find them? Watch kids on the playground to figure out their personalities, & segregate them for appropriate training. Sounds a bit like Brave New World. And if that's not enough, actively meddle in marriages, forcing together couples of opposite types, to breed moderate versions of each of the two types. Wow.
I get the sense that Plato here was writing out his frustration and anger over the death of Socrates. Perhaps he feels that Athenian democracy first stifled Socrates' talk of alternatives, then brutally shut it down. And indeed, that was a dark day. But sometimes this reads as though Plato and Socrates were the ancient Greek equivalent of internet trolls---a couple of opinionated dudes whose caustic I-know-better-than-you forum comments just happened to survive the millennia and become founding documents of Western civilization. Mind blown.
Finally, a few fun moments:
* NERD ALERT---a ridiculous geometry joke. We can split mammals into two types: those like a diagonal, vs those like the diagonal of a square on the diagonal! Why? Because the diagonal on a 1 ft by 1 ft square is length sqrt(2) ft, so it's the side of a *two foot* square; and that square's diagonal is itself the side of a *four foot* square! So we have two-legged and four-legged mammals! Get it? Ah... Gotta love ancient Greek math nerd jokes.
* When Plato goes off-topic, we'd say in English he "loses the thread." Here this happens around the time Plato is talking about the warp and woof (or weft) on a loom. And I just realized that in Polish, the equivalent phrase for going off-topic translates to saying he "loses the woof" :P This is gonna be my new favorite idiom for rambling: "Get to the point, you're losing the woof!"
~~~
Sophist -- Sofista
As in the Statesman, Plato's "Guest" shows off a Socratic dialogue with a yes-man, this time trying to pin down what Sophists are. Somehow this one was more fun to read than the Statesman. Perhaps it's because the yes-man here, Theaetetus, actually interjects his own ideas sometimes. He also has a bit more spunk than Junior Socrates did above, with quips like: "You sure demand quick insights! With more time I might get it, but I don't see it at the moment." I can relate, yo.
But who *were* sophists? They sound a bit like life coaches: they hunt for paying customers who want a sophist to train them: build up their characters, polish their souls, and exercise their debating skills. Except Plato paints them more as demagogues or charlatans: not actually knowing about justice etc., but tricking naive folks into thinking they know. And they also sound a bit like internet trolls: starting arguments just to get a rise out of someone, sowing discord, and counting it as a win when their opponent admits confusion---not when they've actually reached an insight.
On this last count, Plato is pretty upset that sophists *pretend* to be knowledgeable and wise but really are just smart-aleck devil's advocates. In contrast, Plato's very proud of his own method for reaching the truth, i.e. the same binary-tree-approach as in the Statesman. (At one point he seems to claim it's not just a *path* to knowledge, but that his structure is knowledge *itself*?) And indeed he puts it to good use here: At first, Sophists show up in several different branches even though they're supposed to be in just one. That fact in itself means Sophists are hard to define and we should be particularly careful. But we keep applying Plato's technique and eventually pin them down.
(Plus: "When someone presents himself as an expert in many skills, but goes by a name taken from one skill, there is something unhealthy about this..." Why hello, Data Scientists!)
Now, Plato worries sophists will defend themselves by saying there's no such thing as falsehoods. (It smacks of "alternative facts." Such a shame when current events show up in ancient texts. Sad!) To deal with this, at one point we do get bogged down for a long time in defining being and non-being. I lost my taste for these matters while reading Aristotle. But I agree when Plato seems to say the confusion is caused mostly by ambiguous language, much like the old chestnut: "Nothing is better than eternal happiness. And a ham sandwich is better than nothing. So, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness!" ... where the 1st "nothing" is really "no thing" and not the same as the 2nd "nothing."
I do like Plato's own description of his pedagogy: People won't want to learn something they think they already know. But if you ask them enough questions which they answer confidently, and show those answers contradict each other, you'll get them to face their misconceptions and be open to learning. I like that... except for Plato's stance that this approach *shames* people and that that's a good thing. That seemed to be Socrates' approach, but I don't think that public shaming is the right framing for today's classrooms.
And even Plato later agrees. When Theaetetus admits he's "still one of those who stand far away" (and cannot see clearly the false imitations the sophist is presenting), the Guest responds: "That's why we here will try to bring you to the truth as closely and painlessly as possible."
Finally, I *love* what seems to be a claim that philosophy is *inherently* social. We can't do philosophy without verbalizing our thoughts, says Plato; and we can't do that without having a mutual understanding of concepts. So, thinking-deep-thoughts solo isn't good enough: you need to work on building a common, shared understanding with others. What a great contrast to today's vision of a lone genius, writing brilliant papers in his office with the door shut. (And Epicurus had the same idea of philosophy as "a quiet exchange of words among friends in a garden".)
So... I need to start a philosophy reading club to go through these books with me!
~~~
Euthyphro -- Eutyfron
Short, pithy, funny banter... and depressing psychological insights. I would suggest this one as a great starting point for reading Plato. Socrates is bitter that some punk has called him to court for impiety and corrupting Athens' youth, with a possible death sentence looming, when all he's ever tried to do is sharpen young minds. On the way, adding insult to injury, he meets the puffed-up, overconfident, religious fanatic Eutyphro. E is taking his own father to court, certain that the gods see him as being in the right. S can't help himself and asks E to define piety and religious virtue, leading him into self-contradictions... until E excuses himself and runs away, while S heckles him in gleeful mock-disappointment.
Translator points out that S was disappointed in "experts" who couldn't define their own domains, & wished the masses were at least *led* by self-aware men who understood the nature of what they do. (Oh boy, they'd have a field day with Statistics, Data Science, and the Liberal Arts!)
S's best definition of piety is doing good for one's fellow men because the gods will it. By contrast, he sees impiety not as ignoring the gods, but as doing *ill* to others because the gods will it. Again, foreshadows S's own fate at the hands of his "pious" fellow citizens... Alas!
Displaying 1 of 1 review