In continuation with the previous lecture
which was primarily dealing with Plato’s
theory
of ideas he would examine some related concepts
particularly his theory of knowledge.
So, in Plato’s these two things are intimately
related his theory of knowledge is
intimately linked with this theory of knowledge.
So, will see those issues related to these
two concepts their inter relationships in
today’s
lecture.
The topics which we are planning to cover
in this lecture are the parable of the
cave.
This is the very interesting because in continuation
with what we discussed in the
previous lecture about theory of ideas.
This theory of ideas can be further clarified
with
the help of this parable.
So, then after that we will see the analogy
of vision, which
would rather take us to explain his theory
of knowledge and which is supplemented by
another very important concept the reputation
of perceptual knowledge.
Because Plato is
one philosopher who never gives importance
to perception at all, there is absolutely
no
rule for perception in his theory of knowledge.
He would say that, whatever you gather
gain, whatever knowledge you gain through
perception sense perception is to be refuted.
Again in this connection, we have to see if
perceptual knowledge is refuted, if
knowledge gain from perception is treated
as a mistaken knowledge then, how do you
get knowledge about reality?
How do you understand reality at all?
So, here he introduce
us dialectical method which is again we can
see is refers to a Socrates, because it was
Socrates was the person who is actually engaged
in developing this method.
Of course,
in Socrates live probably this method was
not developed in the sense in which it is
employed by Plato, in his dialogues Socrates
would have practiced it with of course,
certain intensions in his mind, but Plato
further develops it into a very matured
philosophical method and in association with
all these things will see his theory of soul.
Now let us examine this Socrates speaking
with Glaucon in one of his dialogues.
So,
Socrates says I will just read it out.
And now let me show in figure how far our
nature is
enlightened or unenlightened: - Imagine human
beings living in a cave, which has an
opening towards the light and reaching all
along the den; here they have been from their
childhood, and have their legs and necks chained
so that they cannot move, and can only
see before them, being prevented by the chains
from turning round their heads.
Above
and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance,
and between the fire and prisoners there is
a raised way and you will see, if you look,
a low wall built along the way, like the screen
which marionette players in front of them,
over which they show the puppets.
Then Glaucon says I see, and do you see men
passing along the wall carrying all sorts
of
vessels, the statues and figures of animals
made of wood and stone and various materials,
which appear over the wall?
Some of them are talking, others silent.
And Glaucon says,
you have shown me a strange image and they
are strange prisoners because they are all
chained from the very birth, from the very
childhood they are chained and they are not
able to turn their neck back and see what
is happening behind them and behind them,
there is fire and in front of them there is
a wall.
So, whatever objects move in between
the fire and the wall would be reflected,
their images would be reflected in the wall
which is there in front of them.
Like ourselves; and see only they see only
their own shadows, that is what Socrates was
trying to assert they can see only their own
shadows, or shadows of one another, which
the fire throws on the opposite wall of the
cave?
And Glaucon says true.
How could they
see anything but the shadows if they were
never allowed to move their heads?
And of the
objects which are being carried in the like
manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes.
And if they were able to converse with one
another, would they not suppose that they
were naming what was actually before them?
Very true, and suppose further that the
prison had an echo which came from the other
side, would they not be sure of to fancy
when one of the passers-by spoke that the
voice which they came from the passing
shadow?
No question, to them the truth would be literally
nothing, but the shadows of
the images.
So, this is what Socrates was trying to communicate.
This is Plato’s famous allegory of
the cave.
So, humans are the imprisoned in the cave,
cave is a human body.
So, when
you try to understand what does it stands
for.
Cave is here the human body stands for the
human body and the chains are the senses.
So, Plato actually tries to tell us that there
is a
human soul which is pure, which is imperishable,
which is eternal, but this human soul is
chained within a body and it is covered by
the senses.
So, in one sense it is changed the
soul is unable to see the reality and there
is a bright light outside of the cave that
produces shadows on the wall.
And the prisoners interpret the shadows as
their reality,
but what is it this is mere opinion.
So, Plato would say that this these prisoners
would
think that these shadows are the reality.
So, they would all talk about these shadows
and the sound produced by them, so for
them that is reality, and for Plato this talk
about the shadow or all these information
they
get about the shadows are only opinions.
They are not knowledge because they are so
confused, my opinion would be different from
another person’s opinion; ours is all we
are all locked inside the prison house of
our body and the chains of our sense organs.
Those people who are ignorant and live in
the inferior world of sense objects are
compared to prisoners in a cave.
So, Plato ultimately tells us that you know,
there are most of us who live in this world
who consider this world as real, who treat
the objects in this world as ultimate realities
are actually having a very inferior kind of
an existence, they are ignorant and live in
the
inferior world of sense objects.
They are chained and are only able to look
in one
direction, they are not able to see what exactly
reality is because they are chained.
The
sense organs will always drag us to the world
of particularities, particular objects in
this
world.
They have a fire behind them and wall in front.
Between them and the wall there
is nothing all that they see are shadows of
themselves and of objects behind them cast
on
the wall by the light of the fire.
For them these shadows are reality.
So, they think that
they are real.
They have no idea about what exactly, what
actually reality.
So, here I have try to
picturize the cave imagery this is the fire,
which you see behind and these are the people
who are chained, and they are chained all
over the bodies.
You can see the chain here
and this is the wall which is there in front
of them and these are objects, see suppose
an
object is kept here these people would not
be able to see the real object, because they
cannot turned their head back instead they
could see only the shadows which are
reflected on the wall in front of them by
means of the fire, and these people considered
these shadows as ultimate reality.
And here the world outside which is enlighten
by the sun, is treated as wisdom and the
prison and chains as sense organs as already
told you and shadows are the sensible
world.
So, the light here stands for enlightenment
and wisdom, then the prison and chains they
represent, as I already mentioned the sense
organs body and shadow the sensible world.
So, when we go to the details at least some
men see, this is the climax of Plato parable
of
the cave.
At least one man or some men succeed in escaping
from the cave to the light of
the sun.
So, what will happen in such an event?
For the first time, he sees the real things
and becomes aware that, he had hitherto been
deceived by shadows.
So, in this is the
moment of enlightenment the moment of he realizes
this person who
comes out.
Realizes that, hitherto he has been deceived
by the shadows he was not living
the real life; he was not perceiving or understanding
the real world.
Now, reality comes
to him.
If he thinks that it is his duty to help his
fellow prisoners also to escape from the
prison house then he is a guardian the ruler
of the people.
So, he goes back to those
people in the cave and tell them that look
the reality the what you see in front of you
is
not real.
That they are mere shadows reality is something
else you have to come with me,
I will show you the reality.
So, this person will go back and he is now
capable of ruling, capable of rather helping
his
fellow prisoners to escape from the cave.
And this is very interesting because Plato
has a
utopia, a political utopia where the state
is ruled by such people who are guardians,
who
have this real vision and wisdom of a philosopher.
So, there is a concept a philosopher
king those people who have escaped from the
prison house of body and sense organs and
who are now able to see reality face to face
they are the rulers.
Now, the theory of ideas is connected with
the theory of knowledge.
So, this is what we
are now trying to understand the relationship
between metaphysics and epistemology in
one sense, these two things are inter related
theory of ideas are linked with the a
epistemology or theory of knowledge.
And when you say the, this dichotomy on the
one
hand we have already seen that there is Plato
maintains a very strict dichotomy between
reality and appearance, ideas alone or real
for Plato and sensible world is treated as
an
appearance.
So, this is a fundamental dichotomy, fundamental
metaphysical dichotomy
which lies at the bottom at the foundation
of Plato’s philosophical theory.
And when it
comes to ideas, they are we have genuine knowledge
when we talk about theory of
knowledge.
Genuine knowledge is possible only about these
ideas it is only it is about, the ideas we
have real knowledge and when it comes to sensible
world of appearance; a world which
is exposed to us or we have access to by means
of sense perception.
It is mere opinion it
is not knowledge, but mere opinion the problem
with opinion is that number 1, different
people can have different opinions.
Number 2, the same person may have one opinion
today and he might change his opinion tomorrow.
So, opinions are not fixed they cannot be
dependent upon if it all you depend on
something it should be knowledge and knowledge
should be on realities which are
unchanging and imperishable.
And here as far his genuine knowledge is concerned
they
are absolutely certain and infallible, but
opinions are fallible and mistaken; they are
unreal, they are only appearance with this
slide gives you a picture about the
interrelationship between Plato’s metaphysics
and epistemology.
How this fundamental
dichotomy plays a very important role in the
scheme of things.
Now, let us see here a very interesting observation
by one of important 20th century
philosopher Bertrand Russell, when he writes
about Plato’s knowledge opinion
distinction.
He brings out a very interesting aspect about
this distinction which Plato
originally maintains.
So, what is says is that if I think it is
going to snow, then it is an
opinion; if I later if later I see it is snowing,
then it is knowledge, but the subject-matter
is the same on both occasions.
So, little normally what we do, I think that
it is going to
snow and after half an hour it actually snows.
Here the subject-matter of my opinion, as
well as what is happening now after half an
hour, they are one and the same.
But for Plato knowledge and opinion must be
concerned
with different subject-matters, this is very
interesting because as in the previous slide
as
shown knowledge is about realities about ideas
opinions are about sensible objects or
sense perceptions.
So, the object of opinion and knowledge are
also different, but in the
case of the snow example which Russell had
cited at, it is shown we are one at the same
that is why the Plato is the hard code and
that is
it.
What can at any time be a matter of opinion
can be never be a matter of knowledge at
all for Plato, because they are two different
kind of entities.
Reality deals with ideas
which are imperishable and knowledge deals
with ideas which are imperishable and
opinions deal with sensible objects which
cannot be depended upon.
And as far as the
question of knowledge is concerned, we have
to attach it with the ideas and opinion
about the particular sensible appearances.
So, here again since we are trying to a move
from metaphysics to epistemology from
theory of reality to theory of knowledge,
let us see this is another very interesting
analogy of vision.
So, when we see an object this is what the
analogy is when what
happens, when you see an object and you need
an eye, the eye is compared as the soul,
which I have already mentioned which is pure,
which is a eternal and imperishable, but
which is unfortunately chained in the prison
house of a the body.
So, the eye is compared
here in this analogy with the soul and sun
as the source of light is nothing but the
truth or
goodness which we have discussed in the previous
lecture, which is treated as by Plato as
a the ultimate reality.
So, republic says, I read when the soul is
firmly fixed on the domain where truth and
reality shine resplendent in it apprehends
and knows them and appears to possess reason,
but when it inclines to that region which
is mingled with darkness the world of becoming
and passing away it opines only and its edge
is blunted and it shifts it is opinions hither
and thither and again seems as if it lacked
reason.
So, what is it I will explain this, to explain
the difference between clear intellectual
vision and the confused vision of sense perception,
this is what Plato was trying to do.
Following the fundamental dichotomy he maintained,
he has actually initiated in his
theory of knowledge.
So, difference between clear intellectual
visions and confused
vision of sense perception the eye as I already
mentioned soul, the sun is a source of light
to truth or goodness light is also a symbol
of wisdom, then again the darkness is
complete ignorance.
But again in twilight there is confused vision.
So, these are three
stages, why this analogy of vision has been
taken by Plato because sight is different
from
other senses since it requires not only the
eye and the object, but also light.
So, that is a reason why he takes up this
particular analogy and here the sun this is
again
from republic.
The sun not only furnishes to visibles the
power of visibility but it also
provides for their generation and growth and
nurture through it nurture through it is not
itself generation.
In like manner, then the objects of knowledge
not only receive from the
presence of the good their being known, but
their very existence and essence is derived
them from it, though the good itself is not
essence, but still transcends essence in dignity
and surpassing power.
So, what is it?
Here clear sunshine where we can see the objects
very clearly as I already
mention the three stages or the three possible
ways in which, we encounter objects in the
world and in twilight what happens is that
we are not very sure of it; what is it, there
is
something in front of me, but I am not able
to distinguish it from I mean what exactly
it
is.
So, there is confused vision and then pitch
darkness I am not able to see anything.
So,
absolutely nothing is seen here and we have,
here we can say that we have access to the
world of ideas when there is enlightenment.
So, only when there is a clear sunshine, we
can see the world clearly similarly only when
there is enlightenment, only when there is
wisdom we have access to the world of ideas
and the world of passing things is confused
twilight world.
And there is nothing worthy
to be called knowledge to be derived from
the senses, though that is the ultimate
conclusion Plato derives from this analogy.
The only real knowledge has to do with
concepts we have already mentioned it the
previous lecture, it is about ideas or forms
or
essences.
Now, to substantiate to supplement, what he
has already stated Plato would refute
perceptual knowledge the very legitimacy of
perceptional knowledge.
It is being stated
from the very outside that, perceptual world
is in constant flux we all know everything
changes in the perception world.
There is no certain knowledge possible about
the
perceptual world because things which we see
today would not be there tomorrow,
things might change the nature, they are qualities
are going to change.
So, everything is
uncertain in such a world things appear to
us as something now and perception is about
such things.
So, when I perceive something and say that
OK, the rose is red.
I am talking about the
rose which is there in front of me at this
moment, and it is red.
After one week, what will
happen to the rose, I do not know I have to
come back and see.
So, perceptional
knowledge is always about appearances and
appearances are always momentary, they are
as it is right now in front of me.
Perception tells us about what something is
there is a
very interesting aspect of perception, perception
also tries to tell us about what
something is, what is the case but there are
problems perceptual world is a world that
is
in a process of becoming.
So, there is an apparent contradiction between
what something is and what something is
becoming.
So, an object which is under constant process
of becoming is under constant
change.
There is no state of keys that object does
not exist as something more than a
moment.
How can you have knowledge genuine knowledge
about that object?
So,
perception deals with knowledge of what become
and not knowledge of what is.
So, this
is interesting distinction Plato means, perception
deals only with knowledge of what
becomes the change and not what is.
So, what is exact sense, the unchangeable
the imperishable the non-changeable essence
of an object is never revealed in perception.
Here, just to animate it, when you talk about
a perception introduce a epistemology, when
you talk about perception you have the
subject of perception and the object of perception.
So, there is some sort of an interaction between
such subject and object, but even we can
understand that from the very outside it is
true that both the subject and the object
are
changed.
So, here we are reminded of Heraclitus who
famously said one cannot step into
the same era twice because both wants end
and the river would be changed.
So, here both the subject and the object are
subjected to change.
Now as a result of a
relationship between the subject and object,
we get perceptual knowledge and since both
subject and object are under constant change
the perceptual knowledge also changes.
In this process what happens to knowledge,
change in the percipient causes the percept.
So, nothing is fixed, nothing can be certain
everything is in the process of constant flux
and change, this is where Plato initiates
a dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus,
a
student of mathematics.
The question is what is knowledge?
And this particular dialogue
is or this section in this dialogue is very
interesting and it is very crucial in understanding
Plato’s theory of knowledge I am not going
to the details of it, because there are several
stages.
Actually there are 4 ways in which Theaetetus
tries to answer Socrates question,
what is knowledge and each stage Socrates
refutes it and ultimately shows that
perception is not a valid genuine source of
knowledge, perception can never take us to
the knowledge the domain of knowledge.
Socrates asks a question: what is knowledge?
And initially Theaetetus gives some examples;
this is what knowledge in geometry in
mathematics this happens.
He tries to point out refer to actually what
happens when that knows, but then Socrates
says that, this is not what I want.
What I want is a definition of knowledge.
What do you
mean by knowledge, you are giving me instances
of knowledge forget about that you tell
me what exactly knowledge is?
And it is here the classical that dialogue
between these
people have initiated with these proposals
given by Theaetetus, who comes up with three
definitions of knowledge.
The first one is, knowledge is perception;
the second one is, knowledge is true belief;
third one is, knowledge is true belief with
an account.
Actually the second and third are
more or less related, the third one is only
a supplemented form of second one, but it
is a
very important supplementation which all the
3 definitions are refuted by Socrates
Plato’s Socrates.
So, the problem is that, when you take up
the first definition.
The first definition is
knowledge is perception what happens is that
there are two philosophers.
Two important
philosophers who come into picture here, the
philosophical background of this position
is
actually as far as Plato is concerned, Plato
Socrates is concerned this statement
knowledge is perception is being analyzed
by analyzing the philosophical positions
advocated by Protagoras and Heraclitus.
Protagoras says, a man is the measure of all
things famous statement by Socrates, man is
the measure of all things and there are many
kinds of percipients.
So, this is what basically Plato says.
Or Socrates says there are
many type of many times of percipients and
many kinds of a perception.
Say for
example, human beings perceives, animals perceive,
mad men also have perception and
in dream also we perceive.
Since man is the measure of all things or
rather perception is
knowledge, let us not talk about Protagoras
here.
For Protagoras is, it is very clear he
reduces this to man and to some extent to
sensible human beings, but when you take up
this identification of perception with knowledge
you have to deal with all kinds of
perceptions, all kinds of by heavy percipient.
So, the percipient need not necessarily be
a human being, it can be animals as well.
So,
how do you make that distinction?
How do you distinguish between the perception
of a
mad man, and the perception of a normal man?
All on equal footing, you cannot put all
of them you cannot keep all of them on equal
footing, but if you once you say,
perception is knowledge then that is too vague.
Now, we come to Heraclitus one cannot
step into the same river twice we cannot make
any assertion about anything, because
everything keeps on changing.
The next moment it is another object to talk
about
something, there must be some point where
we can fix it is meaning.
So, that is the point
which Plato was trying to assert to talk about
something, when we talk about a man.
So,
this man is running, this man is an athlete,
so when I say that, particular person is an
athlete say, Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketer.
So, these assertion necessities that I should
be able to fix the meaning of some terms,
say
for example, most prominently what I mean
by athlete, in this example of course, Sachin
Tendulkar is a cricketer.
So, what I mean by a cricketer, there are
different cricketers
Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar all these people
were cricketers once upon a time.
Now they
are no longer cricketers, they are doing other
things now.
So, what do you mean by a
cricketer.
So, Plato would say that there is an ideal
cricketer, the essence of cricketer to
which all these people participates when they
play cricket.
And again this is advanced by
Russell refutation of perceptual knowledge,
Bertrand Russell actually described what
Plato does by summarizing Plato’s views.
So, what he says is that, we perceive through
eyes and ears rather than with them through
them not with them and, but some of our knowledge
is not connected with any one
particular or any sense organ at all for example,
sounds and colors are unlike.
There is no special organ of for existence
and nonexistence likeness and unlikeness,
sameness and differences, unity and numbers
in general honorable and dishonorable, and
good and bad.
And the mind contemplates some things through
it is own instrumentality,
others through the bodily faculties.
So, that is why, certain some of these things
are
through bodily faculties, but some of these
things are contemplated through it is only
instrumentality by the mind.
We perceive hard and soft through touch, but
it is in the
mind that judges that they exist and that
they are contraries hard and soft.
We perceive
by touching, this table is hard and a cotton
is soft so, but it is the mind which judges
that
they exist and that they are contraries.
Only the mind can reach existence, and we
cannot
reach truth if we do not reach existence.
So, this is a point.
This is a point which Plato also makes the
point about existence only
the mind can reach existence and we cannot
reach through, if we do not reach existence.
We cannot know things through the senses alone.
Through the senses alone we cannot
know that things exist, so knowledge about
things always involves knowledge about
their existence as well.
So, about their existence we never know it
through senses, the
things of existence which belong to sense
perceptions are not themselves objects of
sense
perceptions.
So, this is the distinction which Plato maintains
things of existence which
belong to sense perception and are not themselves,
objects of sense perception.
And
objects of perception are private to that
senses.
Being or existence is the common feature
of all things: this cannot be perceived by
the senses.
So, Plato ultimately tells us that, what is
important is not that information which we
derive through senses knowledge consists in
reflection, not in impressions.
So, he
ultimately takes us to this point that reflection
is very important and reflection is done by
the mind and they are absolutely no role for
sense perception.
Perception is not
knowledge because it has no part in apprehending
truth since it has none in apprehending
existence and again senses do not help you.
They hinder the clear vision of the intellect
which was as shown in the cave analogy.
Now, the question is, if this is the case
then how do you know reality which is beyond
sense perception.
So, Plato was trying to show that, you know
how do you know reality?
Which we definitely cannot know, through sense
perception; which is beyond the
particularities, the particular objects in
this universe.
So, here comprehension of the
universal idea from the scattered particulars
is what we understand as the formation of
concepts.
So, only by understanding only by grasping
this concept you can have
knowledge about these ideas, knowledge about
realities and these ideas are true universal
classifying concepts.
So, what to actually, what knowledge consists
in knowing this
concept, classifying them, relating them,
combing, comparing, dividing, synthasising
and
analyzing concepts?
So, this philosophical enterprise of Plato
aims at understanding concepts and that is
the
process which is known as the dialectical
method, which helps you to do that.
So, the
dialectical method is nothing, but a method
by means of which the human mind is
capable of thinking in terms of concepts.
It is an art of thinking in terms of concepts
nothing else you are absolutely cut off from
the sensible world, but you are
contemplating.
So, that traditional image of a philosopher
as a person who thinks who
contemplates in darkness probably or in night
in solitude because he has nothing to do
with what is happening in the world, he is
no longer living in the world of particular
objects.
He is actually dwelling in a place along with
the universal ideas and concepts
and this is actually this method is originally
employed by Socrates.
So, very interestingly Plato takes a lot from
Socrates here, and this theory again it
presupposes their immortality of this realities
or ideas as I already discussed in the
previous lecture.
Then again the idea that knowledge is about
essences, but also very
importantly the immortality of the soul the
knower, because to know the immortal to
know the imperishable and eternal realities
you need a soul which is also immortal and
imperishable and eternal.
So, the immortality of the soul and all knowledge
is recollection, that is another very
interesting theory initiated by Plato and
from this we can derive this famous Socratic
intellectual midwifery, Socrates always considered
him as a midwife as a intellectual
midwifery philosophy is a search for wisdom.
So, what is dialectical method as I already
mentioned, it is thinking in terms of concepts
to capture the essences that is a objective
of this a dialectical method, and Socrates
pretends that he does not know anything and
asks questions in this process.
He exposes
the confusions and contradictions of his opponents,
he forces them to commit
contradictions soon his opponents realize
that he is the master of the situation.
So, this
what happens he pretends that he does not
know anything or he knows very little about
it
and as if is raising very innocent question
what is this what do you mean by exactly can
you explain it.
So, in this manner Socrates approaches his
opponents and it that process what happens
is
he forces his opponents to come up with exact
clear definitions and if there is an element
of confusion, then they are bound to come
off with contradiction.
Socrates ultimately
force his opponents to make contradictions
and once they contradict they realize that
there is some problem with them and gradually
again they realize that Socrates knows
better than them.
So, here is an example, Thrasymachus says:
that just justice is the interest of the stronger
which Plato, Socrates encounters this view.
So, he says that, the government rich and
powerful can make and change laws ordinary
people cannot might is right, the single
principle of justice is the interest of the
stronger.
Now there is an argument with Socrates, in
defining justice Socrates asks in defining
justice you have yourself used the word interest
which I would also use yes, I just read it
out.
Now we are both agreed that justice is interest
of some sort for you of the stronger
yes.
You admit that, it is just for subject to
obey their rulers; you may also agree that
rulers of states are not absolutely infallible
and they are sometimes liable to err.
Hence in
making their laws they may sometimes make
them rightly, sometimes not.
Absolutely
why they make them rightly, this is again
Socrates.
When they make them rightly, they
make them agreeably to their interest; when
they are mistaken, contrary to their interest.
Yes.
And the laws which they make must be obeyed
by their subjects, and that is what you
call justice, doubtless.
Then in justice according to your argument,
is not only obedience
to the interest of the stronger but the reverse.
So, from here onwards his opponent is
confused, what is that you are saying?
Now Socrates explains.
The rulers may be
mistaken about their own interest in what
they command, and also that to obey them is
in
justice.
Yes.
Then justice is not to be for the interest
of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally
command things to be done which are to their
own injury.
Now his opponents is a little
confused; for if, as you say justice is the
obedience which the subject renders to their
commands, in that case, the weaker are commanded
to do, not what is for the interest,
but what is for the injury of the stronger,
again confused.
So, Socrates is gradually
bringing his opponent to realize his contradiction,
his confusion Thrasymachus you
acknowledge that rulers may sometimes command,
what is not for their own interest and
that for subjects to obey them is justice
yes I do.
Which means for subjects to do what was commanded
by the rulers is just yes justice is
of the stronger yes.
While admitting both these propositions, you
further acknowledge that, the stronger
make the man the weaker, who are his subjects
to do what is not for his own interest.
This means justice is the injury quite as
much as the interest of the stronger.
Again
confused or by the interest of the stronger,
do you mean what the stronger thought to be
his interest?
Certainly not, I will not call him who is
mistaken the stronger at the time
when he is mistaken.
But you admitted that the ruler was not infallible
but might be sometimes mistaken.
You
argue like an informer, Socrates.
Now he is getting irritated his opponent realizing
that
Socrates is him he is getting irritated.
Do you mean for example,
that he who is mistaken about the sick is
the physician in that he is mistaken?
Or that he who errs in arithmetic or grammar
is an arithmetician or grammarian at the
time when he is making the mistake, in respect
of the mistake?
True, we say that the
physician or arithmetician or grammarian has
made mistakes, but neither the grammarian
nor any other person of skill ever makes a
mistake in so far as he is what his name
implies.
None of them err unless their skill fails
them and then they cease to be skilled
artists, but he is commonly said to err, and
I adopted the common mode of speaking.
Again Socrates says, but to be perfectly accurate,
since you are such a lover of accuracy,
we should say that the ruler, in so far as
he is a ruler, is unerring, and being unerring
always commands that which is for his own
interest, and the subject is required to
execute his commands and therefore, as I said
at first and now repeat justice is the
interest of the stronger.
To avoid any misunderstanding occurring between
us in future, let me ask, in what sense
do you speak of a ruler or stronger whose
interest, as you were saying, he being the
superior, it is just that inferior should
be execute - is he a ruler in the popular
or in the
strict sense of the term, in the strictest
of all senses.
Is the physician, taken in that strict
sense of which you are speaking, a healer
of the sick or a maker of money?
And
remember that I am now speaking of the true
physician.
Now, Thrasymachus says a healer of the sick
and the pilot that is to say, the true pilot
is
he a captain of sailors or a mere sailor,
a captain of sailors.
The circumstances that he
sails in the ship is not to be taken into
account; neither is he to be called a sailor;
the
name pilot by which he is distinguished as
nothing to do with sailing, but is significant
of
his skill and of his authority over the sailors,
very true.
Now every art has an interest, for
which the art has to consider and provide?
Yes, that is the aim of an art.
And interest of
any art is the perfection of it this and nothing
else, what do you mean?
I mean what I
may illustrate negatively by the example of
the body.
Suppose you were to ask me whether the body
is self-sufficing or has wants, I should say
I should reply certainly the body has wants;
for the body may be ill and require to be
cured, and has therefore interests to which
the art of medicine ministers; and this is
the
origin and intention of medicine, as you will
acknowledge.
Am I not right?
Thrasymachus says quite right.
But is the art of medicine or any other art
faulty or deficient in any quality in the
same
way that the eye may be deficient in sight
or the ear fail of hearing, and therefore
requires another art to provide for the interests
of seeing and hearing - has art in itself,
I
say, any similar liability to fault or defect,
and does every art require another
supplementary art to provide for it is interest,
and what that another and another without
end?
Or have the art to look only after their own
interests, or have they no need either of
themselves or of another, having no faults
or defects they have no need to correct them,
either by the exercise of their own art or
of any other.
Now Thrasymachus says, they have only to consider
the interest of their subject-matter.
For every art remains pure and faultless while
remaining true that is to say, while perfect
and unimpaired.
Yes, clearly.
Then medicine does not consider the interest
of medicine, but the interest of the body,
true.
Nor does the art of horsemanship consider
the interest of the art of horsemanship,
but the interest of the horse.
Yes.
Neither do any other arts care for themselves,
for they
have no needs; they care only for that which
is the subject of their art, true.
But surely
the arts are the superiors and rulers of their
own subjects?
Oh, but yes!
This is what
Thrasymachus now says, now he is visibly confused.
Then no science or art considers or enjoins
the interest of the stronger or superior,
but
only the interest of the subject and weaker.
Now he is completely confused then no
physician in so far as he is a physician,
considers his own good in what he prescribes,
but
the good of his patient; for the true physician
is also a ruler having the human body as a
subject, and is not a mere money-maker, that
has been admitted?
Yes.
And the pilot
likewise, in the strict sense of the term,
is a ruler of sailors and not a mere sailor?
Ok,
correct.
And such a pilot and ruler will provide and
prescribe for the interest of the sailor who
is
under him, and not for his own ruler’s interest.
Now, Thrasymachus has to accept it yes.
Then, there is no one in any rule who, in
so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoins
what
if for his own interest, but always what is
for the interest of his subject or suitable
to his
art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers
in everything which he says and does.
So, this is the overall picture I have just
read it out, because to give a hang to the
students
about how actually dialectical and dialogue
progress.
And when you try to understand
the underlying notion of his theory of knowledge
as I already mentioned the theory of the
mortality of the soul is there, knowledge
as recollection comes into picture and
intellectual midwifery comes.
So, this picture will give you a idea you
know, there is Plato’s idealism on the top
you
have appearance and reality here sensible
objects and appearances ideas are real
perception, and reason body and the soul and
these things are inferior in reality and this
right hand things, that is reality ideas reason
and soul are superior in reality and goodness
in Plato’s scheme of thing.
So, body and soul is more real and true than
body, philosopher should not be a slave to
ordinary pleasures this is what Plato says.
The philosopher must not care for worldly
pleasure; he must be entirely concerned with
the soul and not with the body and
philosopher should try to free the soul from
communion with the body.
So, this is the ultimate objective of philosopher
to free the soul from the communion of
the body.
Body is a hindrance in the acquisition of
knowledge and this thus culminates in
a complete rejection of empirical knowledge.
So, this picture will summarize it, and this
is also the tripartite theory of soul which
he
advocates.
So, in the middle you can see the rational
aspect of the self where wisdom and
knowledge comes and this particular aspect
is dominant among the guardians and the
rulers of the state.
And here on the left hand side, you would
see spirited valor energy
and courage which is dominant among soldiers
and this is appetitive aspect of soul where
desire dominates which will find among tradesmen.
So, there are three types of human being in
Plato’s ideal state, the guardians are the
rulers, the soldiers protect, and the tradesmen
do other kinds of business trading and
agriculture activities to conclude knowledge
is recollection.
So, that is what ultimately Plato’s theory
of knowledge says, the soul possesses absolute
knowledge, it has forgotten it due to the
association with the body and absolute
knowledge can be gathered only with clear
intellectual vision and this is possible only
when the soul inaffected with the body.
Hence all knowledge is recollection.
So, the
Plato ultimately condemns that the human soul
which is pure, which is imperishable and
eternal knows everything in advance it has
a clear knowledge about the ideas which are
also imperishable and abstract, but due to
it is association with the body the soul has
forgotten it.
Now, with the employment of conceptual dialectical
thinking where thinking in terms of
concepts the influence of the body and the
sense organs can be minimized, can be
avoided, can be bracketed completely and then
the soul can graduate to the domain of
knowledge.
And this process is actually, it is nothing
but a kind of recollection which it
already knows which is forgotten now it recollects.
So, all knowledge according to
Plato’s recollections and it is in this
context Socrates advocates intellectual midwifery,
a
midwife job is to help a woman to deliver,
a baby which is already there; the baby which
is there, inside the body.
Similarly a philosopher is an intellectual
midwife who helps
other human beings to deliver to come up with
knowledge and wisdom which is already
there in themselves, to recollect he or she
would help ordinary human beings to recollect
what they already know.
So, these are the references out of which
this lecture is prepared, basically from three
sources Bertrand Russell’s history of western
philosophy, Alfred Weber’s history of
philosophy and Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy,
it has also referred to many other
books which are very minor.
Thank you.
