Or not — Banno

Very funny. However, I think the joke is on those who missed the joke.

Which is rather more funny than just funny :rofl:

Well, as usually, he kicks up some dust and thinks no one will notice that he has not answered. He is like someone playing chess who thinks that as long as he is moving pieces around he has not lost the game.

But in his defense it is quite troubling the edifice of your eternal verities comes crashing down from their imagined heaven to earth.

Appo is perhaps being obtuse in his insistence. — Banno

It's a little known fact, but when Apo was a kid, his father brought him to the temple in (phila)Delphia, where a sybil predicted that, if he ever agreed with a certain Footloso4, Apo's jaw would drop to the ground, his eyes would melt, and his genitals shrink to the size of a pea. So what's the guy gonna do?

And so, he provides what seems to be the truth, but is a lie, a lie that cannot be effective unless it is believed to be the truth. — Fooloso4

Again, Collingwood comes to mind: The logical efficacy of a supposition does not depend upon the truth of what is supposed, or even on its being thought true, but only on its being supposed.

Again, Collingwood comes to mind: The logical efficacy of a supposition does not depend upon the truth of what is supposed, or even on its being thought true, but only on its being supposed. — Olivier5

That was exactly what I was saying:

If we hypothesize about what it is or how it comes about, it doesn’t mean that perception itself is mere hypothesis. — Apollodorus

It is an elementary mistake to mix up the hypothesis with what is being hypothesized about.

So, Socrates often uses hypotheses to prove the validity of a concept, not to deny it. He does this, for example, with the immortality of the soul and concludes that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d).

Socrates does not deny the Forms, he merely attempts to find ways of mentally describing or defining them as well as he could.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say "Socrates says the Forms are hypotheses". Plus he never says this in the dialogue. The claim that he does would appear to be a lie.

Again, Collingwood comes to mind: The logical efficacy of a supposition does not depend upon the truth of what is supposed, or even on its being thought true, but only on its being supposed.
— Olivier5

That was exactly what I was saying — Apollodorus

I don't think so. Allow me to rephrase. Collingwood's idea is very close to the "noble myth". It says that certain hypotheses are good to make, irrespective of whether they are true or even believed to be true. They are good to make because supposing them leads to doing things and pursuing certain inquiries that might produce some good.

For instance, let's look at the presupposition that "all events in this world have natural causes"; aka "supernatural beings such as gods and the likes do not intervene in this world." Assuming this supposition true rules out the possibility of miracles. So when confronted with something puzzling or mysterious, the person assuming it true will look for natural causes; she will not give up early in the chase, thinking "oh well it must be some god doing this". Instead, she will look for natural explanations for the mystery with a certain obstinacy. And in doing so, she might find something...

Hence science.

Note that some scientists are believers and some even believe in an interventionist god, so they would then disagree with the premise. And yet they are still scientists, because they still ASSUME, for all practice (scientific) purposes, that miracles don't happen and that every event in this world has natural causes.

The logical efficacy of a presupposition does not depend on it being true, or even believed.

Collingwood's idea is very close to the "noble myth". — Olivier5

That may or may not be the case. However, hypotheses may be used in many different ways. That's why I said:

So, Socrates often uses hypotheses to prove the validity of a concept, not to deny it. He does this, for example, with the immortality of the soul and concludes that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d). — Apollodorus

It depends on what is intended to achieve by using a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is used to prove or explain something, then it is incorrect to say that the opposite is intended.

People can hypothesize about the existence or nonexistence of the world, for example, without this changing anything about the world, etc.

That may or may not be the case. — Apollodorus

It IS the case, and it WAS the point I was trying to make.

What were you trying to say? That there is a difference between a hypothesis and what the hypothesis is about? Isn't that glaringly obvious? If I speak about water, my words themselves don't turn into water.

Isn't that glaringly obvious? — Olivier5

Apparently not. Some seem to think that if Socrates hypothesizes about something, then the thing he hypothesizes about is a "hypothesis" or "a lie".

You are quite good at misunderstanding folks and words.

An hypothesis is not something false. It is an idea assumed true, or supposed true, but not proven or perhaps even impossible to prove.

If an hypothesis is impossible to prove, yet leads to good results when assumed, it could be adopted as a useful doctrine, a foundational myth.

it could be adopted as a useful doctrine, a foundational myth. — Olivier5

But why does it have to be a "myth"? And why does a myth have to be a "lie"?

Suppose the thing that the hypothesis hypothesizes about is true, as given in my example/s above, e.g., world, Forms, etc., and the hypothesis neither proves nor disproves the truth of it, but simply attempts to describe, explain, or define it.

I'm not talking about the "goodness" or otherwise of the results. I'm talking about the relation of the hypothesis and the hypothesized thing to one another.

But why does it have to be a "myth"? And why does a myth have to be a "lie"? — Apollodorus

Because it cannot be proven true, and yet it must be presented as true or at least taken to be true. Collingwood's concept of 'absolute presupposition' avoids the negative connotation of the words 'lie' and 'myth'.

Collingwood's concept of 'absolute presupposition' avoids the negative connotation of the words 'lie' and 'myth'. — Olivier5

Theoretically, perhaps. But the connotation remains in everyday language.

Even if we designate something "noble lie", to most people's minds it is still a lie.

The way I tend to see it is that Plato's dialogues should be read on their own terms and taking into consideration the cultural and religious situation of his time, not in light of the opinion of 20th century liberal philosophers.

Even if we designate something "noble lie", to most people's minds it is still a lie. — Apollodorus

That'd be why "presupposition" or "hypothesis" are perhaps better words.

The claim that the Forms are more than just hypothetical requires that they are things known. Socrates has admitted that he does not know them. He tells a story about a transcendent experience in which the Forms themselves are seen. Not having seen them and having said that no one was wiser than him, that he was wiser that other men because he knows that he does not know, they are as part of the story mythological beings.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556615

From the perspective of Socrates' second sailing, hypothetical beings. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556018
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556151

The claim that the Forms are more than just hypothetical requires that they are things known. — Fooloso4

They may be unknown to some and known to others. Socrates does not say that they are unknown to all. Nor does he dispute their existence. On the contrary, he presents arguments in favor of their existence.

It has not been established that the Forms are "presuppositions" or "hypotheses". Socrates certainly does not call them that.

I got bad news for you: Socrates is long dead and he never wrote anything, at least nothing that we know of. Therefore, all knowledge about Socrates is indirect, via a disciple or critique or another. So it's all hearsay, just like everything we think we know about Thales or Jesus is hearsay.

Even Plato didn't write down all of his teaching. There's what Aristotle called the 'unwritten doctrines'.

It follows that we cannot have much certainty about what Plato and Socrates truly meant to say.

It follows that we cannot have much certainty about what Plato and Socrates truly meant to say. — Olivier5

By the same token, we can't have much certainty about anything. However, we have the texts under discussion, viz., the dialogues, and on that basis, we may infer logically (1) what the character "Socrates" is trying to say and/or (2) what Plato is trying to say through Socrates.

It does not appear from the text that either Socrates or Plato thought the Forms to be "hypothetical", "myths" or "noble lies".

However, we have the texts under discussion, viz., the dialogues, and on that basis, we may infer logically (1) what the character "Socrates" is trying to say and/or (2) what Plato is trying to say through Socrates. — Apollodorus

(2) is doable, without any certainty in sight of course, but we can try and even perhaps make some progress along the way.

Note that Plato may well have been voluntarily ambiguous here or there, for obvious reasons of self-protection. In those cases, the "true" Plato teaching may well be simply ambiguous by design.

In other cases, Plato may have tried to be clear but failed to express himself clearly, at least in his writings. In these cases, the true Plato teaching may be unknown. Lost.

It does not appear from the text that either Socrates or Plato thought the Forms to be "hypothetical", "myths" or "noble lies".

It does not appear to you because you close your eyes when it appears.

Note that Plato may well have been voluntarily ambiguous here or there, for obvious reasons of self-protection. In those cases, the "true" Plato teaching may well be simply ambiguous by design...In these cases, the true Plato teaching may be unknown. Lost. — Olivier5

In that case, it's all speculation and a waste of time. It would be much easier and quicker to write our own dialogues and pretend that this is what Plato would have written, had he been a follower of Genghis Khan, Karl Marx, or Saddam Hussein.

It does not appear to you because you close your eyes when it appears. — Olivier5

Good point. Perhaps that's what tends to happen when people close their eyes to the Forms and insist that they are just a figment of Plato's imagination.

In that case, it's all speculation and a waste of time. — Apollodorus

Nah. We just need to stay aware that we can't reach certainty about what Socrates or Plato really meant. This in any case is not a philosophical question: it is a historical question. A future archeological discovery of, say, a lost copy of a book by Socrates could well solve it one day.

In the meantime, the way I see it, some of the truly philosophical questions about Plato would rather be:

- how did his thought, ambiguous and misunderstood as it may have been, influence the world in which we live? What's the trace of Plato in our thinking today, our intellectual debt to him? Or is this debt rather a liability, some sophisticated mental shackle we should get rid of?

- what in his thought, as we can surmise it, resonates today or can be useful today? How can it be understood anew? i.e. should we listen to Plato once more or has everything useful already been said about him?

Philosophy is not really about dead people, ever. It's about what we learn from past traditions and from our own inquiries, that can help us think today.

Note that Plato may well have been voluntarily ambiguous here or there, for obvious reasons of self-protection. In those cases, the "true" Plato teaching may well be simply ambiguous by design. — Olivier5

This is an important point. The most influential contemporary work on this is Leo Strauss' "Persecution and the Art of Writing". https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3633029.html

The art of writing has as its complement an art of reading. Those who think that the dialogues can be read in the same way one reads a doctrine or treatise or theory will never catch sight of what Plato is up to.

It does not appear to you because you close your eyes when it appears. — Olivier5

This has a lot to do with vested interest. If it becomes clear to you or I that we misunderstood something in the dialogue we are grateful to have learned something. But for those who see the dialogues as a religious or quasi-religious or proto-Christian doctrine that confirms their belief, then to see that they are wrong would be far more significant; a threat to their faith, an existential crisis.

Socratic philosophy is destabilizing. He is, however, aware that this can do more harm than good for those who are not able to find their own balance. And so, like a life raft, the dialogues leave enough ambiguity for those who need something to grasp hold of lest they drown.

What's the trace of Plato in our thinking today, our intellectual debt to him? Or is this debt rather a liability, some sophisticated mental shackle we should get rid of? — Olivier5

Maybe like Marx and others whose philosophy has never amounted to much and has only tended to fetter people to superstitions and obsolete ideas.

But why not write our own dialogues? If Plato wrote dialogues, why can't we? And isn't posting comments on an online forum the same as writing philosophical dialogues?

You must have been here for a couple of years and the other one possibly many years. Just think how many dialogues you could have composed in this time.

The art of writing has as its complement an art of reading. — Fooloso4

A good student of past writers should know a bit of history therefore, and in particular it is wise to keep in mind what sorts of ideas could have landed the studied authors in jail, if published or professed publicly. That helps explain why not all logical consequences of a given idea are spelled out, or why an author may be careful avoiding certain subjects in his writings.

That is but one reason among many to take a certain critical distance with a text. Especially when the text speaks of Socrates' trial and death... All apologies of Socrates have to be seen in this light: as not saying it all.

That helps explain why not all logical consequences of a given idea are spelled out, or why an author may be careful avoiding certain subjects in his writings. — Olivier5

Contrary to the typical textbook and history of philosophy, it is not about conveying thought or ideas or information from one person to another. It is about the activity of thinking, of working things out, of making connections, of trying to reconcile seeming contradictions.

I think one reason some have trouble with this is that they are indoctrinated into the idea of revelation. That all we have to do is look and listen and the truth will be revealed.

And isn't posting comments on an online forum the same as writing philosophical dialogues? — Apollodorus

There is no essential difference, what we are doing here IS a philosophical dialogue.

It is about the activity of thinking, of working things out, of making connections, of trying to reconcile seeming contradictions. — Fooloso4

Also therefore it's about dialoguing. The centrality of oral debate in Socrates in particular is pretty obvious. He could have written books but didn't.

Also therefore it's about dialoguing. The centrality of oral debate in Socrates is pretty obvious. He could have written books but didn't. — Olivier5

Yes, I agree. I think Plato's intent was to have the reader do the same.

Some interesting work is being done with the interpretation of Aristotle:
Aristotle's Dialogue with Socrates: On the "Nicomachean Ethics", Ronna Burger. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5806420.html

The premise is that although Aristotle's work is not stylistically in the form of a dialogue it is dialogical.

It was often the case in classical times that a school would have exoteric and esoteric doctrines. The latter were not to be widely shared, and thus were often not published, but transmitted by oral tradition within the school.

Oral tradition is something often neglected in western cultures. But there is an oral tradition on Plato (neoplatonism) that attributes to him a form of monotheism where the One is the ultimate general principle, transcending all the eons. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't suppose he ever wrote this black on white.

It could be that Plato never went that far. Or it could be that he did, but that he thought against publishing this rather revolutionary metaphysical view during his life time because it would have been too risky.