THE HYBRID GENIUS OF PHILOSOPHY

Taking the cue from Nietzsche’s description of Plato as the first hybrid type in the history of philosophy, we approach his towering figure with some trepidation, as there is so much to say about him, and yet, we have deprived him and his offshoot Aristotle of a special section, which could easily be filled to capacity. In that case, however, this work would surely have been transformed into a history of philosophy, which has been the last thing on my mind, and the particular place allotted to Plato and Aristotle on these pages is determined rather by my personal inclination to talk on this or that specific subject than to present a picture of the whole.

Yet, a sort of preamble to the great Greek is, probably, in order, and I am offering it here, starting with this remarkable brief summary of Plato by Bertrand Russell:

Plato and Aristotle were the most influential of all philosophers, ancient, medieval, or modern; and of the two it was Plato who had the greater effect upon subsequent ages. I say it for these two reasons: first, that Aristotle himself is an outcome of Plato; second, that Christian theology and philosophy, at any rate, until the thirteenth century, was much more Platonic than Aristotelian. It is necessary, therefore, in a history of philosophic thought, to treat Plato, and to a lesser degree Aristotle, more fully than we treat any of their predecessors or successors.

The most important matters in Plato’s philosophy are: first, his Utopia, which was the earliest of a lengthy series; second, his theory of ideas, which was a pioneer attempt to deal with the still unsolved problem of the universals; third, his arguments in favor of immortality; fourth, his cosmogony; fifth his conception of knowledge as reminiscence, rather than perception.

From this enumeration alone, it comes clear that Plato was the first philosopher who laid the foundations of professional philosophy, as we know it. But there was a price for his greatness. In Nietzsche’s words, Plato was no longer a “pure type,” but the first “hybrid type,” and although Russell does not resort to Nietzsche’s characterization, he spells it out in the following passage, reminiscent of Marcus Aurelius’ opening credits in his Thoughts:

The purely philosophical influences on Plato were Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Socrates.

From Pythagoras, Plato derived the Orphic elements in his philosophy: the religious trend, the belief in immortality, the other-worldliness, the priestly tone, and all that is involved in the simile of the cave; also his respect for mathematics, and his intimate intermingling of intellect and mysticism.

From Parmenides, he derived the belief that reality is eternal and timeless, and that on logical grounds all change must be illusory.

From Heraclitus, he derived the negative doctrine that there is nothing permanent in the sensible world. This, combined with the doctrine of Parmenides, led to the conclusion that knowledge is not to be derived from the senses, but is only to be achieved by the intellect. This, in turn, fitted well with Pythagoreanism.

From Socrates, he learned his preoccupation with ethical problems, and his tendency to seek teleological, rather than mechanical, explanations of the world. “The Good” dominated his thought more than that of the pre-Socratics, and it is difficult not to attribute this fact to the influence of Socrates.

There are therefore five lines of philosophical inquiry which Plato pursued that we need to comment on in a very general form in this entry.

Plato’s ‘Utopia’ has already been discussed at some length in my entry Plato’s Totalitarian Politeia in the Collective section, and there is no need to provide an additional entry on it in this section. Of some interest, however, is Russell’s explanation for the sources of Plato’s totalitarian mentality, and I would like to quote it here, with a simultaneous memo to myself that Russell’s argumentation may be a useful addition to my original entry, when I undertake its revision and the accompanying expansion, in my next stage of work.

Plato was a well-to-do aristocrat, Russell writes, related to various people who were concerned in the rule of Thirty Tyrants. He was a young man when Athens was defeated (in the Peloponnesian War), and could attribute the defeat to democracy, which his social position and his family connections made him despise. He was a pupil of Socrates, for whom he had a profound affection and respect, and who was put to death by a democracy. It is not, therefore, surprising that he should turn to Sparta for an adumbration of his ideal commonwealth.

In other (Shakespeare’s) words, tired with all this (democracy), for restful (totalitarianism) Plato cried. It is thus important to put such things as, for instance, totalitarianism, getting back to it after a long pause, in their proper context, and see and appreciate them not as a social ideal for all time, but as a natural and reasonable alternative to a democracy running amok.

The next component of Platonism, following Russell’s lead, is Plato’s Theory of Ideas which also includes his notion of The Good. It is perhaps the most complex and comprehensive subject in all Platonism, with a wide range of implications. I will discuss it accordingly at some length in my entry Plato And Christianity and its specific “being versus becoming” subcomponent in the entry after that, titled To Be Or To Become.

For the third component of Platonism see my entry Apostle Paul As A Philosopher, where Plato’s theory of immortality will be discussed in the context of major philosophical influences on Apostle Paul’s thinking.

Russell’s fourth component of Platonism is Plato’s ontology, called cosmogony by Russell. My preference for the word ontology can be explained by the title of my Platonic entry, devoted to it: Plato’s Cosmology And Pre-Socratic Ontology, which follows To Be Or To Become.

And finally, the fifth component of Platonism is discussed in my last entry in the Platonic sequence of this section, under the title Knowledge Versus Perception In Plato which, though, does not round up the Platonic subsection in the Magnificent Shadows, nor my numerous further discussions, and passing references to Plato, which will keep popping up here and there along the rest of the way.