r/Plato

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the Thoth myth in the Phaedrus, and one thing that keeps bugging me is that although Socrates goes on to offer a number of arguments against writing (i.e. it doesn't reply, it doesn't change, etc.), the first thing that Thamus states is that " οὔκουν μνήμης ἀλλὰ ὑπομνήσεως φάρμακον ηὗρες", or "you've found not a recipe for memory, but reminder" or something close. Can someone explain to me the difference between 'memory' and 'reminder/remembrance'? I understand that memory is an internal thing "written in the soul" and "reminder" is an external thing, but given the importance of ἀνάμνησις, isn't a 'reminder' also helpful? Dialogue itself is a reminder, i.e. a trigger to un-forget what we know. I'm sure there's a more nuanced etymological explanation here, so I would appreciate some help.

Following what may be of growing trend in religious studies and cultural interest, this community is created to make a space for discourse between aspects of Zen Buddhism and Platonism/Neoplatonism, and in variegations on this relationship (esp. bridges between broadly "Western" and "Eastern" religion/wisdom-tradition, philosophy, mysticism/spirituality, theoretically and practically).

There will be basic moderation to avoid bot content, sales/promotion, harassment, etc., but the continual goal is to afford high quality discourse (as well, I would be very open to transferring moderation to people who are professionally engaged in the topic in academia and/or public practice and have demonstrable experience impartially hosting discourse community - please reach out if interested!).

Thank you for your time. If there are any questions about the subreddit meta, please feel free to message me directly.

I can't say I don't struggle with this Platonic topic sometimes. It especially becomes a problem when I deal with lasting issues in life. Applying a Platonic lens to things can be genuinely therapeutic when I dwell on various personal problems, but this one hasn't quite worked out for me. I also don't think my well-being is entirely dependent on applying a Platonic lens fwiw, but I wanted to provide the sentimental context behind this post as some of you may perhaps relate and see the value in solving this issue.

The problem is, how can we hold the Platonic system and then account for evils that last for extremely long and damaging lengths of time? If these evils are all necessarily bound to the realm of Becoming, then why doesn't "unbecoming" seem to be happening for them, to the very worst of them?

In assessing these questions in the title, I do think the first necessarily must be denied to avoid affirming the others. Goodness and Beingness are so wrapped up in the Platonic Forms that I don't think you can reformulate it to say that they don't mutually imply one another. But then how do we go about denying that first question? How can we Platonically argue that, between two things which exist for two different lengths of time, the one that exists for longer has no more Being than the one that takes a shorter time? Do we simply say that all things in the carnal realm have an equal proportion of Being, and are all only properly objects of Becoming? Because in this, I think we run into many famous traps regarding the separation of the Formal and Carnal realm, ones that we should avoid. Or do we say that there is some parsable Formal origin to the logic of varying temporality, but that it has nothing to do itself with whether a thing has more or less Being, and has entirely to do with its contextual presence in the carnal realm and if it is bound to come into contact with things that cause its non-existence? Honestly I'm just thinking out loud at this point of the post but I wonder if theres something there

Really I just want all of your thoughts here. Let's have a discussion.

I am 18 and have had no former education on philosophy other than a few rounds of interests here and there. Ive began by reading Platos five dialogues, beginning with meno. Ive read the introduction of meno so far written by Benjamin Jowett. I have listed words I dont understand, looked for the definition of said word, and noted it down. After each read, I write a summary of what i just wrote before reading Jowetts analysis. Read my analysis of the first lines 1-100 of meno and please let me know if theres anything im missing or should mention so far :

"Meno - lines 1 to 100 (intro)

 

The main topic of discussion is the concept of virtue. Meno begins by explaining whether virtue can be taught. Socrates asks Meno to begin by defining virtue which he continues with enumerations rather than a definition. Meno then complains to Socrates how this is inconsistent as not all things taught means they must be defined like colour, figure, etc. Socrates replies and proves that yes in actuality he defines a lot of things and defines figure as the limit of form. Meno believes these definitions to be suited for him, thinking from the Lense of the Greek sophists. Socrates lines his thinking with logic and dialectics so they continue their conversation on definitions. Meno defines virtue as the "delight in things honourable and to have the power of getting them". Socrates breaks down his argument as "the delight in things honourable" means good and "to have the power of getting them" to mean it is obtained justly. Socrates points how this is circular reasoning as justice in itself is virtue , so virtue is the getting of good with virtue according to meno. This presents circular reasoning. Plato then begins to write about socrates question of where knowledge arrives from. Primitive mathematics as an example. He then further says that knowledge is something man always has. Linking that virtue is knowledge. Now he establishes the premise that yes, if virtue is knowledge, then it can be taught. However, he sees a major contradiction, Virtue cant be taught as it had no teachers, he undermines firmly that the sophists arent as respectable as theyre made out to be shown by his interaction with anytus. Plato therefore arrives to the conclusion that as virtue isnt taught, virtue isnt teachable."

Is this a good interpretation so far, and am i missing anything? Also do you recommend i go about their works a different way or is this okay?

So I started reading Plato for the first time finally, and I wish I had read it sooner.  I was reading the part in Apology toward the beginning where “[he] went about searching after a man who was wiser than [himself]: at first among the politicians; then among the philosophers; and found that [he] had an advantage over them, because [he] had no conceit of knowledge.”  “The artisans had some real knowledge, but they had also a conceit that they knew things which were beyond them.”  The oracle was intended to apply, not to Socrates, but to all men who know that their wisdom is worth nothing.  There is also a part which reads:  “. . . .and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me.  So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away:  Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is, — for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.”  I focus most of my philosophical attention on Moral Idealism, so I think, read, and write of humility a lot.  And this is a question I have thought over many times, but I have not seen it presented this way.  ‘Is Socrates truly humble here?’

If you admit you do not know, friend, that is the first step. Yet how can one do what is needed without examining what the good demands of labors? Let us question together what end truly serves wisdom.

​

Alcibiades I

Alcibiades II

Hippias smaller

Hippias bigger

Epinomis

Minos

Kleitofon

Epigrams

Ion

Menexenos

Kratylos

Hipparchos

Lovers

Timaios

Kritias

Nomoi

Letters

I have read all other dialogues exept the spuratious ones and these. I know that this list is pretty long, but I don't know if these will provide me anything additional to the stuff I already took from Plato and some of these in translation to my language are really hard to find. Should I just ignore them and move onto Aristotel or just read some of them (which ones?)

One of the biggest questions people have about reading philosophy is: why read ideas that aren't even practical or relevant today?

Take Plato's Republic, for example. We already know that the kind of ideal state he describes isn't realistically possible. So what's the point of reading it?

The same goes for many other philosophical ideas that don't seem to make sense in today's world or fit our current reality.

And then there's another concern. Some philosophical ideas can push people into existential crises. For some, constantly questioning the meaning of life, morality, or reality can become emotionally overwhelming, and in vulnerable individuals it may even contribute to depression or suicidal thoughts. If that's the case, shouldn't people just stay away from these kinds of philosophies altogether?

So why should anyone read philosophy in the first place?