Reference no: EM133380194

Many commentators on Plato's philosophical system criticize him for what they characterize as a betrayal of Socrates' approach to philosophy. The criticism focuses on Plato's Forms: if the Forms are defined according to the Parmenidean qualities of Spirit (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, infinity, eternity, omnipresence, etc.), then they seem to be the opposite of what Socrates demonstrated through his dialectic. In Socratic dialectic, this kind of reading says, the goal is to question all certainties, and knowledge of Plato's Forms require the highest form of certainty. However (as Plato's followers, who we call the Neoplatonists, knew very well), Plato was never able to give a complete, adequate definition of any of the Forms! In a way, Plato's dialogues add up to an elaboration of Socrates' dialectic, in which the conversation (the dialogues as a whole) end up in aporia (indecidability). Many of you noted in your papers that to become more perfect, humans need an idea of perfection - but perfection is the kind of thing that cannot be fully defined. What good is a Good we can't define?

Part of Socrates' mission was to free people to false, one-sided, limited beliefs. Almost like a Zen Buddhist teacher, Socrates brought people to a place where they could see the limits of their own beliefs, face this fact, and thereby, not let beliefs interfere with living in reality: reality is one thing, beliefs are another, and when we live in our beliefs, we are often not living fully in reality. So Socrates (like the Zen teacher) proves that it is possible to live well, without clinging to our beliefs.

Do you think this is possible, or desirable? Plato's system suggests that even if the goal is to overcome our clinging to beliefs, and to live more in the present (the present reality and the present moment), it is helpful to have ideals of perfection. At the same time, we know that we will never be able fully to define these ideals, and therefore they will have to change over time. But that's okay, so long as we live Socratically, which means that we don't cling so tightly to our beliefs that we, and they, can't change. But if beliefs can change, then how are they "true"?