Plato's Philibus

Davesev

I'm trying to understand what Plato is writing about in these sections. Would anyone that has read this work be interested to discuss with me?

Currently in trying to understand 39-40, hope, judgements, pleasure.

Specifically if you are happy to explain with some examples?

1. SOCRATES: If memory and perceptions concur with other impressions at a particular occasion, then they seem to me to inscribe words in our soul, as it were. And if what is written is true, then we form a true judgment and a true account of the matter. But if what our scribe writes is false, then the result will be the opposite of the truth.

We understand the world according to prior experiences. If we can link a current experience to a previous one, we "scribe" this experience according to our previous ones?

1. SOCRATES: When a person takes his judgments and assertions directly from sight or any other sense-perception and then views the images he has formed inside himself, corresponding to those judgments and assertions. Or is it not something of this sort that is going on in us?

We add our current experience to our existing memory / perceptions?

1. SOCRATES: But there are also those painted images. And someone often envisages himself in the possession of an enormous amount of gold and of a lot of pleasures as a consequence. And in addition, he also sees, in this inner picture himself, that he is beside himself with delight. PROTARCHUS: What else! SOCRATES: Now, do we want to say that in the case of good people these pictures are usually true, because they are dear to the gods, while quite the opposite usually holds in the case of wicked ones, or is this not what we ought to say? PROTARCHUS: That is just what we ought to say.

If this is the hope of a good person, what makes it true? The good person's hope is the hope for goodness, justice, etc. Is this a religious statement? Not sure what Plato means here?

Wosret

The first part is talking about like an apperception, or comprehension of something as such or such. Based in memory, we have internal impressions, or notions about the way things are right now, which is like a hypothesis, and this can either be right or wrong.

The second part is basically asking if we see only what we expect to see. It seems to me

We ought to say it, even if it isn't true -- even if it's the opposite of the truth I would go as far as. It shouldn't matter.

Davesev

Thank you. I'm not sure I understand all of your comment.

Why does he bring in good and wicked? And then go on to talk about good is more likely truth and evil false?

good (just) is a more accurate /unbiased perception of reality than wickedness (unjust)?

Although either way someone wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Wosret

Socrates has a whole thing for why that's so that he goes into in the Meno Dialogue. He believes that the only true evil is ignorance, and the only true good is knowledge. That there is never any question of choice or motivation, people always already want to do and be the most good, just, righteous things, we simply dispute, and don't really know what those are.

Cavacava

↪Davesev

Plato is trying to place pleasure/desire in its relationship with knowledge and ultimately what is Good. He wants to show that pleasure is value neutral, a becoming... that because of what it is can not be an end in itself. So when he speaks of a person forming a judgement based on perception and memory he insists that as our judgments can be true or false so too our pleasures can be true or false. He thinks that the Good is the right/correct proportionate mix of true knowledge and true pleasure.

SOCRATES: Now, do we want to say that in the case of good people these pictures are usually true, because they are dear to the gods, while quite the opposite usually holds in the case of wicked ones, or is this not what we ought to sa

Socrates has been discussing human expectations and I think he is suggesting that the pleasures we picture or anticipate by winning a lottery will depend on the kind of person we are, good or wicked.

Bad men, then delight for the most part in false pleasures, good men in true ones

40c

So winning the lottery will not change the kind of person you are.

Davesev

Thanks.

I think I have a better idea now.

Plato also describes two types of pleasures - of the body and of the soul.

Around 32 Plato seems to say the souls pleasure is the inverse of the body. That the souls pleasure is the hope of filling of the empty.

I am not sure if he goes on to if this is "the" pleasure of the soul, or only one of the pleasures of the soul, where it also enjoys the pleasure of being filled.

Additionally if filled does the soul automatically long for that feeling of emptiness? Or the feeling of longing again for that fullness which it now is experiencing?

Or if even in those cases the soul is still longing for future pleasure? But it is not experiencing the current pleasures?

Does Plato talk about this? I may have misunderstood him or he may go on to explain later?

Cavacava

↪Davesev

You ought to read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Book X in conjunction with Plato's Philebus. Aristotle understood Plato (better than any other thinker) and his thoughts on pleasure are very similar to Plato's thought, he adopted much from Plato's Philebus. They differ in regards to pleasure as generation (genesis) process for Plato versus activity (energia) completed action for Aristotle. Good way to approach both works.

Davesev

Thanks I will look into that!

Plato's Philibus

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions