 Chapter 9 of History of Philosophy. Plato was born at Athens, some years after the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The exact year of his birth is unknown, but 427 or 428 BC is the most probable date. His father's name was Aristot. His mother, Peractini, was descended from Draupides, a near relative of Solon. Plato was originally called Aristicles, Plato being a nickname given by his master in gymnastics on account of his broad build. Concerning his early life, we do not possess much reliable information. We may, however, presume that he profited by all the educational advantages that were within the reach of a noble and wealthy Athenian youth. Zeller calls attention to three circumstances which had a determining influence on the development of Plato's mind. The first of these was the political condition of Athens. The city was just then experiencing the full effects of demagogic rule, and the conditions at home and abroad were such that the mind of the aristocratic young student naturally turned towards idealistic schemes of state organization, schemes which were later to find expression in the Republic. The second circumstance is the fact that in early life, Plato devoted much attention to poetry, composing poems of no mean artistic value. These early studies were not without effect on his philosophy. They influenced the entire spirit of his system as well as the language, so remarkable for its grace and beauty in which that system was set forth. Indeed, it is true in a sense that Plato became a philosopher without ceasing to be a poet. The circumstance, however, which was most decisive in determining the life and philosophy of Plato, was the personal influence of Socrates. For though he had studied the doctrines of Heraclitus under Kratylus, his philosophical training may be said to date from his first meeting with Socrates. After the death of Socrates, Plato, who had spent about eight years as disciple, began his travels preparatory to establishing a school of his own. He first repaired to Megara, where some of the disciples of Socrates were gathered under the leadership of Euclid. Thence he went to Italy to obtain a more intimate acquaintance with the doctrines of the Pythagoreans. The exact order of his subsequent journeys is not certain. Still, there is no reason to doubt that he visited Egypt, although the tales that are told of the vast stores of learning which he acquired in that country are far from reliable. We may accept as true the story of his journeys to Sicily, and of his relations with the elder Dionysius, who sold him into slavery as well as with Dionysius the younger, whom he tried to convert to his Utopian scheme of state government. It was after his first journey to Sicily that Plato began his career at Athens as a teacher. Imitating his master Socrates, he gathered round him the young men of the city, but, unlike Socrates, he refused to teach in the public squares, preferring the retirement of the groves near the gymnasium of Akademis. There he met his disciples, conversing with them after the manner of Socrates, though it is natural to suppose that in his style as well as in his choice of illustrations he departed from the Socratic example of studied plainness. On his return from his third journey to Sicily, Plato took up his residence permanently in Athens, and thenceforth devoted himself unremittingly to teaching and writing. He lived at the age of 80, dying in the midst of his intellectual labours. If Cicero's story be true, he died in the act of writing. According to another tradition prevalent in ancient times, he died at a wedding feast. Plato's Character Even in antiquity the character of Plato was violently assailed. His dealings with Socrates and afterwards with his own disciples, his visits to Sicily, his references to the philosophical system of his predecessors were all made the pretext for accusations of self-assertion, tyranny, flattery of tyrants, plagiarism, and willful misrepresentation. His aristocratic ways and his disdain of the ostentatious asceticism of the cynics served as the basis for charges of love of pleasure and immorality. The evidence on which all these accusations rests is of the flimsiest nature, while on the contrary, everything that Plato wrote, there's testimony to the lofty nobility of the man. The truth is that Plato's character was not easily understood. When the idealism and poetic temperament which were his by instinct and early training broke loose from the restrain of Socratic influence, he was merely realizing in his personal character the ideal of Greek life, an ideal which, by reason of its many-sidedness, was a contradiction and a scandal to the narrow-minded advocates of asceticism and obstemiousness. The importance which Plato attached to a larger culture was taken by the cynics and his other adversaries as a sign that he had abandoned, whereas he was in reality but rounding out and perfecting the Socratic idea of what a philosopher ought to be. Plato's Writings We are fortunate in possessing all the genuine works of Plato. The so-called platonic dialogues which are spoken of as lost are certainly spurious. The divisions, mentioned by Aristotle, is neither a platonic nor an Aristotelian treatise. The agrifa dogmata, of which Aristotle also makes mention, is most likely a collection of the views which Plato himself had not committed to writing but which some disciple collected for the use of the school. While nothing that Plato wrote has been lost, it is by no means easy to determine how many of the 36 dialogues that have come down to us are undoubtedly authentic. With respect to Phaedrus, Protagoras, the Banquet, Gorgias, the Republic, Timaeus, Thetidus, and Phaedo, there can be no reasonable doubt. Others like Parmenides, Cradolus, the Sophist are not so certainly genuine, while in the case of Minos, Hipparchus, etc., the balance of evidences against their authenticity. Next comes the question of the order or plan of the platonic dialogues. Uberweg mentions the three principal theories held by scholars. They are, one, that Plato wrote according to a definite plan, composing first the elementary dialogues, then the mediatory, and finally the constructive discourses. Two, that he had no definite plan but that the dialogues represent the different stages in the development of his mind. Three, that he deliberately portrayed in his dialogues the several stages in the life of Socrates, the ideal philosopher. Zeller, however, very sensibly remarks that the question has been argued too much on a priori grounds, and suggests that the first thing to do is to determine the order in which the dialogues were written, a task that is by no means easy. The form of the platonic writings is, as is well known, the dialogue. The reasons why Plato adopted this literary form are not far to seek. In the first place he was influenced by the Socratic method. Secondly, he was poet enough to recognize the dramatic effect of which the dialogue is capable and the room which it affords for local coloring and portrayal of character. Finally, he must have recognized that the dialogue afforded him the amplest opportunity of presenting the life of the model philosopher in the words and acts of the idealized Socrates. Philosophy was for Plato a matter of life as well as of thought. True philosophy, therefore, could only be represented in the perfect philosopher, in the personality, words, and demeanor of Socrates. The platonic dialogue has been well described as occupying a middle position between the personal converse of Socrates and the purely scientific, continuous exposition of Aristotle. Plato, adopting a stricter idea of method than Socrates adopted, excludes the personal and contingent elements which made the discourse of Socrates so picturesque. While at times, when he explains the more difficult points of doctrine, he abandons almost altogether the inductive method for the deductive. The dialogue well nigh disappears and gives way to unbroken discourse. This is especially true of the Timaeus. In his use of the dialogue, Plato constantly has recourse to the myth as a form of expression. The poetical and artistic value of the myth is conceded by all, but it offers no small difficulty when there is a question of the philosophical doctrine which it was meant to convey. Whatever may have been Plato's purpose in introducing the myth, whether it was to elucidate by concrete imagery some abstract principle, or to mislead the unthinking populace as to his religious convictions, or to conceal the contradictions of his thought, striving to escape philosophical criticism by seeking refuge in the license of the poet, there can be no doubt that the myth was intended to be a mere allegory, and Plato himself warns us against taking such allegories for truth, the shadow for the substance. Plato's Philosophy. Definition of Philosophy. Plato's philosophy is essentially a completion and extension of the philosophy of Socrates. What Socrates laid down as a principle of knowledge, Plato annunciates as a principle of being. The Socratic concept which was epistemological is succeeded by the Platonic idea, which is a metaphysical notion. Socrates taught that knowledge through concepts is the only true knowledge. Therefore concludes Plato, the concept or the idea is the only true reality. Thus for Plato, philosophy is the science of the idea, or as we should say, of the unconditioned basis of phenomena. In the Phaedrus, Plato describes how the soul at sight of singular phenomena is moved to a remembrance of its heavenly home and of the archetypes which it contemplated in a previous existence, and of which it now beholds the imperfect copies. Thereupon the soul falling into an ecstasy of delight wanders at the contrast between the idea, archetype, and the phenomenon, copy, and from this wonder proceeds the impulse to philosophize, which is identical with the impulse to love. For while it is true that there is a contrast between every idea and its phenomenon, the contrast is more striking in the case of the idea of the beautiful. This idea shining through its visible copies more perfectly than any other idea. Philosophy, then, is the effort of the human mind to rise from the contemplation of visible copies of ideas to the knowledge of ideas themselves. To the question, how is this knowledge of ideas to be attained? Plato answers, by means of dialect, to this all other training is preliminary. Plato, moreover, is careful to distinguish between knowledge, episteme, and opinion, doxa, so that when he defines philosophy as knowledge, we must understand him to speak of knowledge in the stricter sense of the term. Division of Plato's Philosophy Plato, unlike Aristotle, neither distinguished between the different parts of philosophy, nor made each part the subject of a separate treaties. Still, the doctrines found in the dialogues may be classed under the three heads of dialectic, physics, and ethics. A division which, according to Cicero, was made by Plato himself, although it is more probable that it was first formulated by Xenocrates, as Sextus says. Under the title dialectic, it is customary to include not only logic, but also the doctrine of ideas. Under the division, physics are comprised Plato's doctrine concerning the world of phenomena in general, his teaching regarding the relation between idea and phenomenon, his cosmic genetic theories, his notions of matter, space, and so forth. Finally, under ethics are included not only questions which belong to the science of morals, but also the political doctrines which play so important a part in the Platonic system. Dialectic, it would be idle to look to Plato for a system of logic. We find indeed that he mentions certain laws of thought, but he enunciates them as laws of being, making them serve a metaphysical rather than a logical purpose. It is owing perhaps to this tendency of Plato's mind toward the metaphysical view that the definition and division receive more of his attention than do the other problems of logic. Dialectic, he teaches, is concerned, as is every part of philosophy, with the idea, or more explicitly, dialectic has for its object to reduce what is manifold and multiple in our experience of phenomena to that unity of concept which belongs to a knowledge of ideas and, furthermore, to establish an organic order among the concepts thus acquired. Dialectic has, therefore, a double task of defining universal concepts by induction, soon agoge, and classifying them by division, diuresis. Definition and division together, with some remarks on the problem of language, are the only logical doctrines to be found in the dialogues. Dialectic, however, includes, besides logical doctrine, the theory of ideas, which is the center of all Platonic thought. For dialectic is the doctrine of the idea in itself, just as physics is the doctrine of the idea imitated in nature, or as ethics is the doctrine of the idea imitated in human action. Under the title of dialectic, therefore, the theory of ideas is studied. It includes the following questions. 1. Origin of the theory of ideas. 2. Nature and objective existence of the ideas. 3. Their expansion into plurality, formation of the world of ideas. 1. Origin of the theory of ideas. The theory of ideas, as has been remarked above, is a natural development of the Socratic doctrine of concepts. Knowledge, as distinct from opinion, is the knowledge of reality. Now, Socrates taught that in order to know a thing, it is necessary and sufficient to have a concept of that thing. Therefore, the concept, or idea, is the only reality. To deny that the idea is a reality is to deny the possibility of scientific knowledge. Such is the first and most immediate derivation of the theory of ideas. Starting from Socratic premises, Plato argues that the theory of ideas is the only explanation of the objective value of scientific knowledge. Elsewhere, however, as in the Philibus, he derives the doctrine of ideas from the failure of Heraclitus and the Eliatics to explain being and becoming. Heraclitus was right in teaching that becoming exists. He was wrong in teaching that being does not exist. The Eliatics, on the contrary, were right in teaching that being is, but they were wrong in teaching that becoming is not. The truth is that both being and becoming exist. When, however, we come to analyze becoming, we find that it is made up of being and not being. Consequently, in the changing world around us, that alone is real which is unchangeable, absolute one, namely the idea. For example, the concrete changeable just is made up partly of what we would call the contingent element, the element of imperfection of not being and partly of the one immutable idea, justice, which alone possesses real being. To say then that the idea of justice does not exist is to say that the just, a just man or a just action, is not all being and has no reality. And what a set of justice may be said of any other idea, the idea is the core of reality underlying the surface qualities which are imperfections on realities. Thus, the reality of being and the reality of scientific knowledge demand the existence of the idea and this double aspect of the idea is never absent from Plato's thought. The idea is a necessary postulate if we maintain, as we must maintain, the reality of scientific knowledge and the reality of being. These are the two roads that lead to the idea, the Socratic doctrine of concepts and the problem of being and becoming, a problem that was stated though not satisfactorily solved by Heraclitus and the Eliatix. Besides these philosophical principles which led to the theory of ideas, there existed in the mind of Plato what may be called a temperamental predisposition to adopt some such theory as the doctrine of ideas and by means of it to explain knowledge and reality. For Plato was a poet and in him the artistic sense was always predominant. He was a Greek of the Greeks and the Greek even in his mythology loved clearly cut, firmly outlined forms, definite visible shapes. It was natural therefore for Plato not merely to distinguish in things the permanent element which is their being and the object of our knowledge but also to extract as it were this element from the manifold and changeable in which it was embedded and to hypothesize it causing it to stand out in a world of its own in all its oneness and definiteness and immutability. Number two, the nature and objective existence of the ideas. From what has been said it is clear that the idea is the element of reality in things, the one uniform immutable element unaffected by multiplicity, change and partial not being. The expressions which Plato uses to describe the idea always imply one or several of these attributes. For instance, he calls it The name however by which the idea is most commonly designated is idos or idea which primarily denotes something objective though in a secondary sense the platonic idea is also an idea in our meaning of the word, a concept by which the object is known. But whether the idea be considered subjectively or objectively and the objective aspect is always to be considered first it is essentially universal or to use Aristotle's phrase we may call it the universal essence if we are careful to dissociate from the word essence the meaning of something existing in things for nothing is clearer than that Plato understood by the idea something existing apart from the phenomena which make up the world of sense the idea transcends the world of concrete existence it abides in the heavenly sphere in the topos no itos where the gods and the souls of the blessed contemplate it it is described in the fadress as follows quote now of the heaven which is above the heavens no earthly poet has ever sung or ever will sing in a worthy manner but i must tell for i am bound to speak truly when speaking of the truth the colorless and formless and intangible essence is visible to the mind which is the only lord of the soul circling around this in the region above the heavens is the place of true knowledge end quote in the banquet the idea of beauty is described as quote beauty only absolute separate simple and everlasting unquote there can be no doubt therefore that plato separated the world of ideas from the world of concrete existence he hypothesized so to speak the idea and it was against this separation of the idea that Aristotle directed his criticism of Plato's theory according to Aristotle the platonic world of ideas is a world by itself a prototype of the world which we see and in this interpretation Aristotle is supported and sustained by all the later scholastics it is no longer seriously maintained that the platonic ideas exist merely in the human mind more worthy of consideration is the view of st augustine who following the example of early christian platinists identifies the world of platonic ideas with the mind of god this view supported as it is by the authority of some of the greatest of christian philosophers as well as by that of the later platinists and of all the neoplatinists is not likely to be set aside on the other hand the statements of Aristotle are explicit and we must remember that Aristotle was an immediate disciple of Plato we have no reason to suppose that he willfully misrepresented his master in this most important point and we have every reason to believe that he was fully capable of understanding his master's teaching so far the idea has been described as the objective correlative of our universal concept but while the universality of our concepts is a product of dialectical thought the universality of the idea is objective that is independent of the human mind this objective universality is explained in the sophist in which Plato attacks the eliotic doctrine of the oneness of being maintaining that the idea is at the same time one and many but how are the unity and multiplicity of the idea to be reconciled Plato answers that they are reconciled by the community coenonia of concepts as a concept for example being is differentiated into its determinations such as motion and rest so in the objective order as Plato shows in the parmenides by a more cogent process of direct argument the idea is identical with another thing tautone and at the same time is different from other things in this way we have unity in plurality and plurality in unity a scholastic would say that the fundamental unity of the subject is not incompatible with the formal multiplicity of its qualities and while this is not precisely what Plato meant it is certainly a better illustration of Plato's meaning than is the neoplatonic interpretation according to which by ideas Plato meant numbers it is however very likely that Plato did not clearly understand how unity and multiplicity could belong to the idea just as Plato attacked the eliotic doctrine of the oneness of being so did he attack the eliotic doctrine of immobility the idea is active for if it were inert it would be capable neither of being known by us nor of constituting reality and to cause things to be known and to constitute their reality are so to speak the two functions of the idea not only is the idea described as active but even as the only true cause in a remarkable passage Socrates is represented as saying that he was dissatisfied with the speculations of the physicists that he was disappointed in his hope that an exagerus would explain the origins of things and that he finally discovered that ideas are the only adequate causes of phenomena Aristotle therefore is right in saying that he knew of no efficient causes in the doctrine of Plato except ideas and thus we are forced to accept without attempting to explain the platonic doctrine that ideas without being caused are causes that although they are not subject to becoming they are the power by whose agency all phenomena become still injustice to Plato it should be remembered that while he maintains the dynamic function of the ideas holding them to be living powers he is primarily concerned with their static or plastic function in as much as they are the forms or types of existing things number three the world of ideas Plato hardly ever speaks of the idea but always of ideas in the plural for there is a world of ideas indeed we may say that for Plato there are three worlds the world of concrete phenomena the world of our concepts and the world of ideas cosmos or topos no itos the relation between the first and third of these worlds will be discussed later under the head of physics the relation between the world of concepts and the world of ideas lies in the fact that the former is the faint reflection of the latter this is how Plato would describe it in modern terminology we would say the world of ideas is the logical and ontological pre-use of the world of concepts but however we view the relation between the two worlds it cannot be denied that there is at least a parallelism between them to every concept corresponds an idea and to the laws of thought which rule the world of concepts correspond the laws of being which rule the world of ideas in the first place just as our concepts are many the ideas are many everything has its idea what is small and worthless as well as what is great and perfect products of art as well as objects of nature substances qualities relations mathematical figures and grammatical forms all these have their ideas that alone has no idea which is mere becoming the number of ideas then is indefinite in the second place our concepts possess a logical unity and so in all the multiplicity of ideas there is a unity which may be called organic the ideas form a series descending and well ordered division and subdivision from the highest genera to the individual and it is the task of science to represent this series to descend in thought from the one to the multiple Plato himself attempted to perform this task naming as the most universal ideas being and not being like and unlike unity and number the straight and the crooked an attempt which suggests on the one hand the ten opposites of the Pythagoreans and on the other hand the ten Aristotelian categories the classification is of course incomplete of greater importance than this incomplete enumeration of the highest kinds of ideas is Plato's doctrine of the supremacy of the idea of good as in the material universe the sun is the source of light and life illuminating the earth and filling every part of it with life producing warmth so in the super sensible world of ideas the idea of good is the light and life of all the other ideas causing them both to be and to be known but what does Plato mean by this idea of good is it merely the absolute good acting as final cause the goal of human activity the ultimate end of all things if this were Plato's meaning the good might be defined as a final cause it could not be defined as efficient cause and it certainly is so described moreover in the filibus the good is identified with divine reason the only rational interpretation therefore of Plato's doctrine of the good is that by the idea of good Plato meant god himself it is true that for us who are accustomed to represent the deity as a person it is not easy to realize how Plato could apostatize a universal concept and call it god or how he could conceive the source of life and energy to be intelligent and yet describe it in terms inconsistent with self-consciousness the correct explanation seems to be that the relation between personality and intelligence did not suggest itself to Plato not only he but the ancient philosophers in general lacked a definite notion of what a personality is Plato it must be understood did not deny the personality of god indeed he often speaks of god as a person he was simply unconscious of the problem which suggests itself so naturally to us how to reconcile the notion of personality with the idea of good which he identified with god from the consideration of the idea of good we are led to the next division of Plato's philosophy namely physics it was because of his goodness that god created phenomena we pass therefore as it were through the idea of good from the world of ideas to the world of phenomena physics under this head are included all the manifestations of the idea in the world of phenomena now the world of phenomena is the world of sense presentation the region of change and multiplicity and imperfection and therefore of partial not being it presents a striking contrast to the world of ideas which stands in viewless majesty above it and where there is no change no imperfection and no not being yet these two worlds have something in common there is a contact thus the concrete good good men good actions partakes of the absolute good a horse or a fire in the concrete world partakes of the horse in itself or of the fire in itself which exists in the world of ideas in the parmenides the participation is explained to be an imitation mimesis the ideas being prototypes paradigmata of which the phenomena are egg types or copies a dola this participation is however so imperfect to that in beauty and luster and grandeur the world of phenomena falls far short of the world of ideas whence we are forced to ask comes this imperfection this partial not being for answer plato is obliged to assume a principle directly antithetical to the idea he does not call this principle matter the word hule being first used in this sense by Aristotle and it is a mistake to interpret plato's thought as if by the principle of imperfection he meant a material substratum of existence the phrase by which it is designated varies in the different dialogues it is called for example space jorah mass ecmegion receptacle pendigese the unlimited apiron and according to some interpreters it is not being may on and the great and small it is described in the timeus as that in which all things appear grow up and decay consequently it is a negative principle of limitation more akin to space than to matter and Aristotle is right in contrasting his own idea of the limiting principle with that of Plato the so-called platonic matter is essentially a negation whereas in Aristotle's philosophy negation steady cease is but a quality of matter the concept of platonic matter is not easy to grasp it is a mere form yet it is not a form of the mind in any Kantian sense it is a form objectively existing and yet it is not a reality Plato himself recognized the difficulty which the concept of the principle of limitation involved in the timeus he tells us that it is known by a kind of spurious reason logis monotho and is hardly a matter of belief the confession does not surprise us for in this attempt to designate a limiting principle lies the fatal flaw of the whole platonic theory to derive the limited from the unlimited the partial not being from being is a task which neither Plato nor Spinoza could fulfill consistently with his first assumptions Aristotle detected this weakness in the idealistic monism of Plato as well as in the materialistic monism of the early physicists and it was in order to supply the defects of both that he introduced the dualistic concept of a world which is the outcome of the potential and the actual Plato therefore failed to account satisfactorily for the derivation of the sensuous forms from the super sensuous world he had recourse as Aristotle remarks to such widely different expressions as participation community cononia imitation but he must have been aware that by these phrases he evaded rather than solved the real problem one point however is beyond dispute Plato assumed that a limiting principle the source of all evil and imperfection exists he assumed it illogically in defiance of his doctrine that the idea is the only reality he is therefore as one who would be a dualist did his premises allow him to depart from the monism which is the starting point of all his speculation two in order to explain the world of phenomena Plato was obliged to postulate besides the idea and the principle of limitation the existence of a world soul noose which mediates between the idea and matter and is the proximate cause of all life and order and motion and knowledge in the universe the universe he taught is a living animal so on in on endowed with the most perfect and most intelligent of souls because as he argues in the Tamaeus if God made the world as perfect as the nature of matter the principle of limitation would allow he must have endowed it with a soul that is perfect this soul is a perfect harmony it contains all mathematical proportions defused throughout the universe ceaselessly self-moving according to regular law it is the cause of all change and all becoming it is not an idea for the idea is uncaused universal all being while the world soul is derived and particular and is partly made up of non-being although it is conceived by a kind of analogy with the human soul the question whether it is personal or impersonal never suggested itself to Plato after the general problem of the derivation of the sensuous from the super sensuous world come the particular questions which belong to what we call cosmology Plato himself informs us that since nature is becoming rather than being the study of nature leads not to true scientific knowledge episteme but to belief only pistes cosmology therefore and physical science in general have a value far inferior to dialectic which is the science of the pure idea three as to the origin of the universe the so-called platonic matter is eternal the universe however as it exists had its origin in time this seems to be the natural and obvious sense of Timaeus 28 although Xenocrates an immediate disciple of Plato was of opinion that Plato taught the temporal origin of the world merely for the sake of clearness to emphasize the fact that it had an origin now since matter existed from eternity the universe was not created from out the chaos which was ruled by necessity and not gay god the Demi or just or creator brought order fashioning the phenomena in matter according to the eternal prototypes the ideas and making the phenomena for he was free from jealousy as perfect as the imperfection of matter would allow first he produced the world soul then as the sphere is the most perfect figure he formed for this soul a spherical body composed of fire air earth and water substances which in pedicles had designated as the root principles of the world and which are now for the first time in the history of philosophy called elements the question why are the elements four in number Plato answers by assigning a teleological as well as a physical reason thus exhibiting the two influences Socratic and Pythagorean which more than any other causes contributed to determine his physical theories the four elements differ from one another by the possession of definite qualities all differences of things are accounted for by different combinations of the elements themselves bodies are light or heavy according as the element of fire which is light or the element of earth which is heavy prevails for in his explanation of the world system as it now is Plato shows still more evidently the influence of the Pythagoreans and especially of Philo Laos add to this influence the natural tendency of Plato's mind towards the idealistic and artistic concept of everything and the doctrine that the heavenly bodies are created gods the most perfect of gods creatures from whose fidelity to their paths in the firmament man may learn to rule the lawless movements of his own soul will cease to appear out of keeping with the seriousness of Plato's attempt to solve the problems of human knowledge and human destiny five in Plato's anthropological doctrines the mixture of myth and science is more frequent and more misleading than in any other portion of his philosophy as to the origins of the soul he teaches that when the creator had formed the universe and the stars he commanded the created gods to fashion the human body while he himself proceeded to form the human soul or at least the rational part of it taking for his purpose the same materials which he had used to form the world soul mixing them in the same cup though the mixture was of inferior purity Plato rejects the doctrine that the soul is a harmony of the body on the ground that the soul has strivings which are contrary to the inclinations of sense and which prove it to be of a nature different from that of the body the soul is expressly defined as a self-moving principle it is related to the body merely as a causa movens how then did it come to be united to the body Plato answers by the figure or allegory in which is conveyed the doctrine of pre-existence in the Timaeus however the mythical form of expression is laid aside as when for example the soul is said to have been united to the body by virtue of a cosmic law the doctrine of pre-existence gave rise to the doctrine of recollection though sometimes as in the main oh the previous existence of the soul is proved from the possibility of learning the doctrine of recollection implies that in our super celestial home the soul enjoyed a clear and unclouded vision of the ideas and that although it fell from that happy state and was steeped in the river of forgetfulness it still retains an indistinct memory of those heavenly intuitions of the truth so that the sight of the phenomena mere shadows of the ideas arouses in the soul a clearer and fuller recognition of what it contemplated in its previous existence the process of learning consists therefore in recalling what we have forgotten to learn is to remember if pre-existence is one pole in the ideal circle of the soul's existence immortality is the other the sojourn of the soul in the world of ever changing phenomena is but a period of punishment which ends with the death of the body underlying the mythical language in which Plato conveyed his psychological doctrines there is a deep seated conviction of the reality of the future life a genuine belief in the immortality of the soul indeed Plato is the first Greek philosopher to formulate in scientific language and to establish with scientific proof an answer to the question does death and all things hitherto the immortality of the soul had been part of the religious systems of Asia and of Greece now it appears for the first time as a scientific thesis as part of a purely rational system of philosophy the dialogue which deals expressly with the problem of immortality is the phato there socrates is represented by the narrator as discoursing on the future existence while the jailer stands at the door of the prison with the fatal draft in his hand the arguments which socrates uses may be summed up as follows one opposites generate opposites out of life comes death therefore out of death comes life number two the soul being without composition is akin to the absolutely immutable idea the body on the contrary is by its composition akin to things which change when the body is destroyed the soul by virtue of its affinity to the indestructible is enabled to resist all decay and destruction number three if the soul existed before the body it is natural to expect that it will exist after the body that it existed before the body is proved by the doctrine of recollection number four besides these arguments the following proof is used by Plato the dissolution of anything is accomplished by the evil which is opposed to it now moral evil is the only evil which is opposed to the nature of the soul if then sin does not destroy the soul as it certainly does not the reason must be that the soul is indestructible underlying all the foregoing arguments is the one pivotal thought of Plato's psychology that life necessarily belongs to the idea of the soul this thought is brought out in the last of the socratic arguments number five an idea cannot pass into its opposite a scholastic would say essences are immutable an idea therefore which has a definite concept attached to it excludes the opposite of that concept now life belongs to the idea of the soul consequently the soul excludes death which is the opposite of life a dead soul is a contradiction in terms the same ontological argument occurs in phaedrus 245 and it is evidently the chief argument on which Plato bases his conviction that the soul is immortal yet in the phato after each of socrates listeners has signified his acceptance of the proof socrates is made to agree with simius that there is no longer room for any uncertainty except that which arises from the greatness of the subject and the feebleness of the human mind closely allied with the doctrine of immortality is the doctrine of transmigration of souls and of future retribution plato recognized that immortality involves the idea of future retribution of some sort just as the necessity of a future retribution involves immortality he did not determine scientifically the precise nature of retribution in the next life he was content with adopting the transmigration myths which he derived from the mysteries yet for plato these myths contained a germ of truth although the most that can safely be said is that he seriously maintained the doctrine of transmigration in a generic sense the details so carefully set forth in the timaeus and in the phato are not to be taken as part of plato scientific thought when we speak of immortality we must not imagine that plato held every part of the soul to be immortal he enumerates three parts of the soul the rational logos the irasable thymos and the appetitive epithemia parts these are not faculties or powers of one substance but parts mere the distinction of which is proved by the fact that appetite strives against reason and anger against reason and appetite reason resides in the head the irasable soul the seed of courage is in the heart and the appetite the seed of desire is in the abdomen of these three the rational part alone is immortal it alone is produced by god by maintaining that the soul has parts plato weakens his doctrine of immortality and exposes it to many objections plato in his theory of knowledge bases his distinction of kinds of knowledge on the distinction of objects objects of knowledge are divided as follows super sensible objects no iton genus are divided into ideas ide and mathematical entities mathematical sensible objects hodaton genus are divided into real bodies somata and semblances of bodies icones to this corresponds the division of knowledge super sensible knowledge noesis is divided into intellect noose and reason opinion sense knowledge doxa is divided into sense perception pistes and imagination icosia knowledge begins with sense perception the senses however cannot attain a knowledge of truth they contemplate the imperfect copies of the ideas as long as we look upon the objects of sense we are merely gazing at the shadows of things which according to the celebrated allegory of the cave are moving where we cannot see them namely in the world of ideas from which the soul has fallen yet though the sense perceived world cannot lead us to a knowledge of ideas it can and does remind us of the ideas which we saw in a previous existence it is by the doctrine of recollection therefore that plato bridges over the chasm between sense knowledge and a knowledge of reality phenomena are not the causes but merely the occasions of our intellectual knowledge for in knowledge as in existence the universal according to plato is the pre-use of the individual the doctrine of the freedom of the will assumes a novel phase in the philosophy of plato plato unequivocally asserts that the will is free not only is freedom a choice a quality of adult human activity but it is a free choice also that decides our parentage hereditary tendencies physical constitution and early education for all these are the result of actions freely performed during the previous existence of the soul notwithstanding this doctrine of freedom plato holds the Socratic principle that no one is voluntarily bad plato's physiological doctrines are of interest as serving to show the futility of attempting to explain the complicated phenomena of life with such inadequate experimental data as he had at his command he was forced by his philosophical principles to neglect observation and to underestimate sense knowledge Aristotle who attached greater value to empirical knowledge was far more successful in his investigation of natural phenomena ethics under this head are included plato's ethical and political doctrines if plato's physics was styled the study of the idea in the world of phenomena this portion of his philosophy may be called the study of the idea in human action and human society ethics however is vastly more important than physics in the platonic system of thought for physics is treated as if it were scarcely more than a science of the apparent while such is the importance attached to ethics that plato's philosophy as a whole has been described as primarily ethical and the description is true to a certain extent all platonic as well as Socratic speculation starts with an inquiry about the good and the beautiful and proceeds in the case of plato through the doctrine of concepts to the theory of ideas nevertheless while Socratic influence is more apparent in plato's ethics than in any other portion of his philosophy it is true that the system of ethics in its completed form is part of the platonic structure and is conditioned by the metaphysics anthropology and physics of plato as well as by the Socratic inquiries concerning virtue one the highest good subjectively considered is happiness objectively it is the idea of good which has been seen is identified with God consequently the aim of man's actions should be to free himself from the bonds of the flesh from the trammels of the body in which the soul is confined and by means of virtue and wisdom to become like God even in this life here however plato shows a moderation which presents a striking contrast to the narrow-mindedness and intolerance of the cynics as well as to the sensualism of the hedonists for though virtue and wisdom are the chief constituents of happiness there is place also for right opinion art and for such pleasures as are genuine and free from passion two virtue differs from the other constituents of happiness in this that it alone is essential it is defined as the order harmony and health of the soul while vice is the contrary condition socrates had identified all virtue with wisdom plato merely assigns to wisdom the highest place among virtues reducing all virtues to four supreme kinds wisdom fortitude temperance and justice he differs also from socrates in his attempt to reduce the idea of virtue to its practical applications socrates as has been pointed out based all practical virtue on expediency plato on the contrary abandon the utilitarian view and by attaching to virtue an independent value inculcated greater purity of intention three it is in the state that we find the most important applications of plato's doctrine of virtue man should aim at being virtuous and could even in his savage condition attain virtue without education however virtue would be a matter of mere chance and without the state education would be impossible while therefore the state is not the aim and end of human action it is the indispensable condition of knowledge and virtue accordingly the state should have for its object virtue or as we should say the establishment and maintenance of morality now the only power that can remove from virtue what is contingent and casual and can place morality on a firm foundation is philosophy consequently in the platonic state philosophy is the dominant power and plato teaches expressly that quote unless philosophers become rulers or rulers become true and thorough students of philosophy there will be no end to the troubles of states and of humanity and quote the ideal state is modeled on the individual soul for the state is the larger man now in the soul there are three parts in the state therefore there are three orders rulers warriors and producers in the details of his scheme for the government of the ideal state plato is led by his aristocratic tendencies to advocate a system of state absolutism he abolishes private interests and private possessions he sacrifices the individual and the family to the community he subordinates marriage and education to the interests of the state he acknowledges however that his schemes are difficult of realization and it is for this reason that in the laws he sketches the scheme which though inferior to the scheme outlined in the republic is nearer to the level of what the average state can attain religion and aesthetics this title does not like physics and ethics designate a portion of plato's philosophy it is merely a convenient heading under which are grouped the doctrines of plato concerning the existence of god and the nature of the beautiful one religion plato as we have seen identifies true religion with philosophy the highest object of philosophical speculation and the object of religious worship are one and the same for philosophy is a matter of life and love as well as a theoretical thought atheism therefore is as irrational as it is impious the existence of god is evident from the order and design which plato recognizes as existing not only in animal organisms but also in the larger world of astronomy in the cosmos whose soul is so much superior to the souls of animals and of men besides this teleological argument plato makes use of the argument from efficient cause he combats the principles of the early physicists according to whom all things including reason itself came originally from matter this he considers to be an inversion of the true sequence for reason precedes matter and is the cause of all material motion and of all the processes of matter the divinity is the absolute good the idea of goodness plato extols his power his wisdom and his all including knowledge and freely criticizes the prevailing anthropomorphic notions of god god is supremely perfect he will never show himself to man otherwise than he really is for all lying is alien to his nature he exercises over all things a providence which orders and governs everything for the best sometimes plato speaks of god as a personal being besides the sovereign divinity plato admits the existence of subordinate created gods it is they who mediate between god and matter and fashion the body of man as well as the irrational parts of his soul chief among the created gods are the world soul the souls of the stars and the demons of ether air and water with regards to popular mythology plato employs the names of the gods he speaks of Zeus apollo and the other divinities but quote the existence of these divinities as held by the Greeks he never believed nor does he in the least conceal it to aesthetics when we consider the importance of art in the thought and civilization of Greece we are surprised at the scant attention which aesthetics received from Greek philosophers before plato and even plato though he concerned himself with the analysis of the beautiful into its metaphysical constituents seems to have overlooked the necessity of a psychological study of the sentiment of the beautiful although the good is the highest of the ideas the beautiful is of greatest interest in philosophy because it shines more clearly through the veil of phenomena than does any of the other ideas for the essence of the beautiful is harmony symmetry and order qualities which strike the mind of the intelligent observer of the world of phenomena even though he failed to penetrate to the depths of the phenomenon where the good lies hidden by a convenient phrase calocagathon the Greeks identified the beautiful with the good the phrase however is capable of two interpretations it was commonly understood to mean that the beautiful is good plato following socrates interpreted it to mean that the good is beautiful corporeal beauty he taught is lowest in the scale of beautiful things next come fair souls fair sciences fair virtues highest of all is the pure and absolute beauty to which none of the grossness of the phenomenon cleaves now the good is harmonious and symmetrical being the good therefore is beautiful and the phenomenon which partakes of the good partakes in like manner of the beautiful art has for its object the realization of the beautiful all human products are imitations but while for example good actions are the imitations of the idea of good and beautiful actions are the imitations of the idea of the beautiful works of art are imitations of phenomena imitations of imitations consequently art is not to be compared with dialectic nor with industry nor with the science of government it is merely a pastime intended to afford pleasure and recreation strange doctrine surely for one who was himself a poet like other pastimes it must be controlled for art too often flatters the vulgar taste of the wicked and the base plato accordingly taught that all artistic productions the works of sculptors and painters as well as those of poets and rhetoricians should be submitted to competent judges to whom should be delegated the authority of the state for rhetoric and all the other arts should be placed at the service of god and should be so exercised as to assist the statement in establishing the rule of morality historical position there is scarcely a portion of Plato's philosophy which does not betray the influence of his predecessors the Socratic principle was his starting point the Pythagorean school determined to a large extent his cosmological doctrines as well as his speculations about the future life Empedocles and exagerus and the earlier Ionians influenced his cosmogenetic theories and his doctrine of elements while Heraclitus, Xeno the Eliatic and Protagoras the Sophist contributed each in his own way to the platonic theory of knowledge yet it goes without saying that Plato was no mere compiler he modified even the Socratic teaching before making it part of his philosophical system and whatever he derived from those who went before him he molded and wrought so as to fit it for its place in the vast philosophical edifice the foundation of which is the theory of ideas this distinctively platonic theory is the basis on which rests the whole superstructure of physics dialectic ethics theology and aesthetics it is also the unifying principle in Plato's system of thought whether the problem he discusses be the immortality of the soul the nature of knowledge the conditions of the life after death the mission of the state or the nature of the beautiful his starting point is always the idea it is therefore no exaggeration to say that with the doctrine of ideas the entire system of platonic philosophy stands or falls consequently our judgment of the value of the contents of Plato's philosophy must be postponed until we can enter with Aristotle into a critical examination of the value of the theory of ideas but whatever may be our judgment as to the value of his philosophy no adverse criticism can detract from his preeminent claim to the first place among the masters of philosophical style even though we refuse to call him profound we cannot but subscribe to the verdict by which all ages have agreed to give him the titles divine and sublime subsequent speculation subsequent discovery and subsequent increase in the facilities for acquiring knowledge have corrected much that Plato taught and added much to what he said and yet not a single master has appeared who could dream of rivaling not to say excelling the literary perfection of his philosophical dialogues this literary perfection goes deeper than words it includes a peculiar charm of manner by which Plato lifts us from the sordid world of material things to a world of exalted types and ennobling ideals his aim as a philosopher is to demonstrate that true knowledge and true reality should be sought not in the things of the earth but in those of that other world beyond the heavens where there is no imperfection change or decay it is this charm of manner that Joubert had in mind when he wrote quote Plato shows us nothing but he brings brightness with him he puts light into our eyes and fills us with a clearness by which all objects afterwards become illuminated he teaches us nothing but he prepares us fashions us and makes us ready to know all the habit of reading him augments in us the capacity for discerning and entertaining whatever fine truths may afterwards present themselves like mountain air it sharpens our organs and gives us an appetite for wholesome food end quote end of chapter nine chapter 10 of history of philosophy this is a LibriVox recording while LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org history of philosophy by William Turner chapter 10 the Platonic schools the laws which according to the most probable opinion was written by Plato though it was not made public until after his death there's evidence of the influence which in the later years of his life the philosophy of the Pythagoreans exercised on his mind inclining him to attach more and more importance to the mystic element in philosophy and to the number theory it was this phase of platonic thought that was taken up and developed by the platonic academies while in the hands of Aristotle the teachings of the earlier dialogues were carried to a higher development during the lifetime of Plato there was little if any dissension among the members of the school which assembled in the grove of academics after Plato's death however Aristotle set up a school of his own in opposition to the members of the academy who claimed to possess in their scolar the authorized head of the platonic school the first scolar was Speosipus the nephew of Plato who according to diogenes leiertes received his appointment from Plato himself he in turn was seceded by Xenocrates and in this manner the secession of skullharks continued down to the sixth century of the christian era it is customary to distinguish in the history of the platonic school three periods known as the old the middle and the new academy to the old academy belong Speosipus Xenocrates Heraclitus of Pontus Philip of Opus Crates and Cranthor Arxillus and Carnades are the principal representatives of the middle academy while Philo of Larissa and Anticus of Ascalon are the best known members of the new academy sources are sources of information concerning the history of the doctrines of the three academies are for the most part secondary they are scanty and cannot be relied upon in matters of detail as far however as a general characterization of each school is concerned our materials are sufficiently ample and trustworthy old academy the old academy flers from the death of Plato 347 bc until the appearance of Auxesolus as scholar about 25 bc it is distinguished by its interpretation of the platonic theory of ideas in accordance with the number theory of the Pythagoreans Speosipus seems to have substituted numbers for ideas assigning to them all the attributes including separate existence which Plato in his earlier dialogues had attributed to the ideas although according to theophrastus seosipus devoted but little attention to the study of the natural sciences on one important point of physical doctrine he differed from Plato maintaining if we are to believe our neil Pythagorean authorities that the elements are five not four and deriving these five after the manner of phiolus from the five regular figures if as is probable Aristotle and analytica posteriori to 1397 a6 is speaking of seosipus the latter maintain that in order to know anything we must know everything xenocrates continued to combine as seosipus had done the number theory of the Pythagoreans with Plato's doctrine of ideas he went farther however than seosipus in his application of number to theological notions developing a system of demonology which suggests in its elaborateness the doctrines of the neoclatonist Heraclitus of Pontus is remarkable for having taught the diurnal revolution of the earth on its axis and the immobility of the fixed stars these views were first proposed by Icetus of Sicily and by ecfantus who was also a Sicilian our authorities are theophrastus and Plutarch Philip of opus is generally believed to be the author of eponymous and the editor of the laws of which the eponymous is a continuation crates and crantor devoted themselves mainly to the study of ethical problems middle academy the middle academy was characterized by an ever increasing tendency to skepticism chronologically it belongs to the third period of greek philosophy and in its spirit and contents it is more keeping with the post-aristallian age than with the time of Plato and Aristotle accessilus who was born about 315 bc is regarded as the founder of the middle academy he combatted the dogmatism of the stoics maintaining that as according to these stoics the criterion of truth is perception and as a false perception may be irresistible as a true one all scientific knowledge is impossible it is therefore he concluded the duty of a wise man to refrain from giving his assent any proposition an attitude of mind which the academicians called forbearance still our cesilus would grant that a degree of probability sufficient for intelligent action is possible carnades live from about 210 to 129 bc consequently he was not the immediate successor of accessilus whose principles he developed into a more pronounced system of skepticism he held that there is no criterion of truth that what we take to be true is only the appearance of truth which cicero renders probability visa new academy after the death of carnades the academy abandoned skepticism and returned to the dogmatism of its founder phylo of larissa and antiochus of ascalon introduced into the academy elements of stoicism and neoplatonism which belong to the third period of greek philosophy historical position the academics although they were the official representatives of platonic philosophy failed to grasp the true meaning of the theory of ideas by introducing Pythagorean and other elements they turn the tradition of the platonic school out of the line of its natural development and ended in adopting a skepticism or a dogmatic eclecticism either of which is far from what should have been the logical outcome of Plato's teaching they are to play to what the imperfectly socratic schools are to socrates the continuity therefore of platonic thought is not to be looked for in these schools but rather in the school found by Aristotle end of chapter 10 chapter 11 part one of history of philosophy this is a librivox recording all librivox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit librivox.org history of philosophy by william turner chapter 11 Aristotle the socratic doctrine of concepts introduced into philosophy the notion of the universal no sooner however had socrates formulated the doctrine of universal concepts then the cynics arose denying that anything exists except the individual thus it at once became necessary to define the true relation between the universal and the individual this was the aim of Plato's theory of ideas in which the relation was explained by deriving the individual in reality and in knowledge from the universal Aristotle judging that Plato's explanation was a failure open up the problem once more and endeavored to solve it by deriving the universal in reality and in knowledge from the individual the continuity of philosophic thought is therefore to be traced from socrates through Plato to Aristotle as if the imperfect socratic and platonic schools had not existed life Aristotle was born at stegyra a seaport town of the colony of calcidice in Macedonia in the year 384 bc his father Nicomachus was physician to king Amintus of Macedon and if as is probable the profession of medicine was long hereditary in the family we may suppose that this circumstance was not without its influence in determining Aristotle's predilection for natural science when he was 18 years old Aristotle went to Athens where for 20 years he followed the lectures of Plato many stories are told concerning the strange relations between the aged teacher and his illustrious scholar stories which however are without any foundation there may indeed have been differences of opinion between master and pupil but there was evidently no open breach of friendship and in later years Aristotle continued to count himself among the platonic disciples associated with Xenocrates on terms of intimate friendship and showed in every way that his respect for his teacher was not lessened by the divergence of their philosophical opinions many of the tales told to Aristotle's discredit are traced to Epicurus and the Epicureans calumnators by profession grubbers of gossip as teller calls them and it is to be regretted that writers like Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Justin Marder were misled by statements which were manifestly made with a hostile purpose we are saved therefore in supposing that Aristotle was a diligent and attentive pupil and that he did not give expression to his criticism of Plato's theories until after he had listened to everything that Plato had to say in explanation and defense of his views after Plato's death Aristotle repaired in company with Xenocrates to the court of Hermes Lord of Atarnius whose sister or niece Pithius he married in 343 he was summoned by Philip of Macedon to become the tutor of Alexander who was then in his 13th year the influence which the influence which he exercised on the mind of a future conqueror is described in Plutarch's Alexander when Alexander departed on his Asiatic campaign Aristotle returned to Athens this was about the year 335 it is possible that as Galeus says Aristotle had during his former residence at Athens given lessons in rhetoric it is certain that now for the first time he opened a school of philosophy he taught in a gymnasium called the lyceum discoursing with his favorite pupils while strolling up and down the shaded walks around the gymnasium of Apollo whence the name peripathetics from peripateo through the generosity of his royal pupil Aristotle was enabled to purchase a large collection of books and to pursue his investigations of nature under the most favorable circumstances his writings prove how fully he availed himself of these advantages he became thoroughly acquainted with the speculations of his predecessors and neglected no opportunity of conducting either personally or through the observations of others a systematic study of natural phenomena towards the end of Alexander's life the relations between the philosopher and the great commander became somewhat strained still so completely was Aristotle identified in the minds of the Athenians with the Macedonian party that after Alexander's death he was obliged to flee from Athens the charge which was made the pretense of his expulsion from the city was the stereotyped one of impiety to which charge Aristotle disdained to answer saying as the tradition is that he would not give the Athenians an opportunity of offending a second time against philosophy accordingly he left the city in 323 repairing to Calces in Euboea there he died in the year 322 a few months before the death of Demosthenes there is absolutely no foundation for the fables narrated by so many ancient writers and copied by some of the early fathers that he died by poison or that he committed suicide by throwing himself into the u b n c because he could not explain the tides Aristotle's character Eusebius in his preparatio evangelica 15 2 enumerates and refutes the accusations which were brought against Aristotle's personal character quoting from Aristocles a peripatetic of the first century BC these accusations are practically the same as those which gained currency among the enemies and detractors of Plato and are equally devoid of foundation from Aristotle's writings from fragments of his letters from his will as well as from the reliable accounts of his life we are enabled to form a tolerably complete picture of his personal character noble high-minded thoroughly earnest devoted to truth courteous to his opponents faithful to his friends kind towards his slaves he did not fall far short of the ideal moral life which is sketched in his ethical treatises compared with Plato he exhibited traitor universality of taste he was not an Athenian in a certain sense he was not a Greek at all he exhibited in his character some of that cosmopolitanism which afterwards became a trait of the ideal philosopher Aristotle's writings it is quite beyond dispute that some of the works which Aristotle compiled or composed have been lost thus for example the anatomai containing anatomical charts the peri futon the existing treatise de plantis is by theophrastus the polytheae a collection of constitutions of states the portion which treats of the constitution of Athens has been discovered in recent years and the dialogues are among the lost works it is equally certain that many portions of the collected works of Aristotle as we now possess them are of doubtful authenticity while it is possible that a still larger number of books or portions of books are little more than lecture notes amplified by the pupils who edited them it is well for example for the student of the metaphysics to know that of the 14 books which compose it the first third fourth sixth seventh eighth and ninth constitute the work as begun but not finished by Aristotle of the remaining books the second and one half of the eleventh are pronounced spurious while the rest are independent treatises which were not intended to form part of the work on first philosophy without entering into the more minute questions of authenticity we may accept the following arrangement of Aristotle's works with their Latin titles logical treatises constituting the organon one category two the interpretazione three analitica priora four analitica posteriora five topica six de sofisticis elenches these were first included under the title of organon in Byzantine times metaphysical treatise the work entitled metataphysica or at least a portion of it was styled by Aristotle prote filosofia its present title is probably due to the place which it occupied after the physical treatises in the collection edited by Andronicus of Rhodes about 70 bc physical treatises one physica auscultatio or physica two the cello three de generazione et corrupzione four meteorologica five historie animaleon six de generazione animaleon seven departibus animaleon psychologic treatises one de anima two de sensu et sensibili three de memoria et reminiscencia four de vita et morte five de longitudine et brevitate vitae and other minor works ethical treatises one etica nicomachia two politica the eudaemian ethics is the work of eudaemus although it is probable that it was intended as a recension of an Aristotelian treatise rhetorical and poetical treatises one de poetica two territorica these are spurious in parts Galeas speaks of a twofold class of Aristotelian writings the exoteric which were intended for the general public and the acroatic which were intended for those only who were versed in the phraseology and modes of thought of the school all the accent works belong to the latter class the story of the fate of Aristotel's works as narrated by Strabo and repeated with the addition of a few details by Plutarch is regarded as reliable it tells how the library of Aristotel fell into the hands of Theophrastus by whom it was bequeathed to Nelius of Skepsis after the death of Nelius the manuscripts were hidden in a cellar where they remained for almost two centuries when Athens was captured by the Romans in 84 BC the library was carried to Rome by cellar a Rome a grammarian named Turanian secured several copies thus enabling Andronicus of Rhodes to collect the treatises and publish them it must not however be inferred that the manuscripts hidden in the cellar for 200 years were the only existing copy of Aristotel's works or that during all those years the peripatetic philosophers were without a copy of the works of Aristotel the subsequent history of the corpus Aristotelium and the story of the Syriac Arabian and Latin translations belong to the history of medieval philosophy Aristotle's philosophy general character and division Aristotle's concept of philosophy agrees in the main with that of Plato philosophy is the science of the universal essence of that which is actual Aristotle is however more inclined than Plato was to attach a theoretical value to philosophy the difference between the two philosophers is still greater in their respective notions of philosophic method Aristotle does not begin with the universal and reason down to the particular on the contrary he starts with the particular data of experience and reasons up to the universal essence his method is inductive as well as deductive consequently he is more consistent than Plato in including the natural sciences in philosophy and considering them part of the body of philosophic doctrine in fact Aristotle makes philosophy to be co extensive with scientific knowledge quote all science dianoya is either practical poetical or theoretical and quote by practical science he means politics and ethics under the head poetic poetic he includes not only the philosophy of poetry but also the knowledge of other imitative arts while by theoretical philosophy he understands physics mathematics and metaphysics metaphysics is philosophy in the stricter sense of the word it is the knowledge of immaterial being or of being in the highest degree of abstraction it is the pinnacle of all knowledge the theological science in this classification logic has no place being apparently regarded as a science preparatory to philosophy our study of Aristotle's philosophy will therefore include uppercase a logic uppercase b theoretical philosophy including lowercase a metaphysics lowercase b physics lowercase c mathematics uppercase c practical philosophy uppercase d poetical philosophy uppercase a logic including theory of knowledge Aristotle does not employ the word logic in the modern meaning of the term the science which we call logic and of which he is rightly considered the founder was known to him as analytic the organon as the body of logical doctrine was styled by the later peripatetics consists of six parts or treatises one the category in the first of his logical treatises Aristotle gives his classification or enumeration of the highest classes categories into which all concepts and consequently all real things are divided they are substance quantity quality relation action passion place time situation and habitus he intimates that these are intended as classes of things expressed by isolated words that is to say by words which do not form part of a proposition they are to be distinguished therefore from the predicables or classes of the possible relations in which the predicates of a proposition may stand to the subject the predicables are definition horos genus difference property and accident there can be no reasonable doubt as to the originality of the Aristotelian arrangement of categories it is true that there is a remote analogy between the categories and the distinctions of the grammarian but the analogy can be explained without supposing that Aristotle expressly intended to conform his categories to the grammatical divisions of words it is also true that Aristotle does not always enumerate the categories in the same manner to the day interpretation in the second of the logical treatises Aristotle takes up the study of the proposition and the judgment he distinguishes the different kinds of propositions and treats of their opposition and conversion this portion of his work forms the core of modern logical teaching three the analytica priora contains the treatise on reasoning deductive and inductive in his doctrine of the syllogism Aristotle admits only three figures the syllogism he teaches is based on the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle he mentions three rules of the syllogism induction he defines as reasoning from the particular to the general and though the syllogism which proceeds from the general to the particular is more cogent in itself induction is for us easier to understand the only kind of induction admitted by Aristotle is complete induction four in the analytical posteriori Aristotle takes up the study of demonstration apotheosis true demonstration as indeed all true scientific knowledge deals with the universal and necessary causes of things consequently all true demonstration consists in showing causes and the middle term in a demonstration must therefore express a cause not all truths however are capable of demonstration the first principles of a science cannot be demonstrated in that science and principles which are first absolutely are indemonstrable they belong not to reason but to intellect news to the class of indemonstrable truths belong also truths of immediate experience five the topica has for subject matter the dialectical or problematic syllogism which differs from demonstration in this that its conclusions are not certain but merely probable they belong to opinion rather than to scientific knowledge the topica also treats of the predicables six the treatise the sophisticated elenches contains Aristotle study of fallacies or sophisms it contains also an attack on the sophists and their methods before we proceed to explain Aristotle's metaphysical doctrines it is necessary to take up the principles of his theory of knowledge as we find them in the analytical posteriora and elsewhere in his logical and metaphysical treatises theory of knowledge nowhere does the contrast between the philosophy of Plato and that of Aristotle appear so clearly as in their theories of knowledge one Plato makes experience to be merely the occasion of scientific knowledge Aristotle regards experience as the true source and true cause of all our knowledge intellectual as well as sensible two Plato begins with the universal idea and attempts to descend to the particular phenomenon Aristotle while he recognizes that there is no science of the individual as such maintains nevertheless that our knowledge of the individual precedes our knowledge of the universal three Plato hypothesized the universal attributing to it a separate existence this according to Aristotle is to reduce the universal to a useless form for if the universal exists apart from the individual there can be no transition from a knowledge of the one to a knowledge of the other the universal Aristotle teaches is not apart from individual things four finally according to Plato the universal as it exists apart from phenomena is a full blown universal endowed with a formal character of universality according to Aristotle the formal aspect of universality is conferred by the mind and therefore the universal as such does not exist in individual things but in the mind alone this is the only intelligible interpretation of such passages as metaphysics three four nine hundred ninety nine and the anima two five four hundred seventeen in which Aristotle maintains that the individual alone exists and that the universal is somehow pose in the mind Aristotle's theory of knowledge as is evident from the four principles just explained recognizes two fundamental attributes of intellectual knowledge it's essential dependence on sense knowledge and it's equally essential superiority to sense knowledge Aristotle is as careful to avoid sensism on the one hand as he is to escape idealism on the other for though he admits that all knowledge begins with experience he contends that intellectual thought noesis is concerned with the universal or intelligible no tone while sense knowledge has for its object the individual the sense perceived I stay tone the distinction of objects is made the basis and ground of a distinction of faculties and of kinds of knowledge if then there is a distinction between sense knowledge and thought and if all knowledge begins with sense knowledge how do we rise from the region of sense to that of intellect Aristotle answers by distinguishing first and second substance the first substance who see a prote is the individual which can neither exist in another nor be predicated of another second substance is the universal which as such does not exist in another but may be predicated of another in the individual substance we distinguish and closer examination two elements the hippocamino or undetermined determinable substratum the matter who lay and the determining principle or form ados by which the substance is made to be what it is the essential nature therefore the unalterable essence corresponding to the concept the object consequently of intellectual knowledge is the form matter it is true is part of the essential nature but it is as it were the constant factor always the same and of itself undifferentiated it enters into a definition as materia comunis and when we designate the form of an object implying the presence of matter in its general concept we have answered the question what is that object the form then considered apart from the matter is the essence of the object as far as intellectual knowledge is concerned for intellectual knowledge has for its object the universal and since matter is the principle of individuation and form the principle of specification the conclusion of the inquiry as to the object of intellectual knowledge is that matter and the individual qualities arising from matter belong to sense knowledge while the form alone which is the universal belongs to intellectual knowledge returning now to the question how do we rise from the region of sense to the region of intellect the object of sense knowledge we repeat is the whole the concrete individual substance thought penetrating through the sense qualities reaches the form or quiddity lying at the core of the substance and this form considered apart from the material conditions in which it is immersed is the proper object of intellectual knowledge thus the acquisition of scientific knowledge is a true development of sense knowledge into intellectual knowledge if by development is understood the process by which under the agency of the intellect the potentially intelligible elements of sense knowledge are brought out into actual intelligibility Aristotle himself describes the process as one of induction epagogy or abstraction a viruses uppercase b theoretical philosophy lower case a metaphysics in the foregoing account of Aristotle's theory of knowledge it has been found necessary to mention form matter and substance notions which properly belong to this division of his philosophy one definition of metaphysics metaphysics or first philosophy is the science of being as being other sciences have to do with the proximate causes and principles of being and therefore with being in its lower determinations metaphysics considers being as such in its highest or most general determinations and consequently it is concerned with the highest or ultimate causes accordingly on metaphysics devolves the task of considering the axioms of all sciences in so far as these axioms are laws of all existence for this reason it is that in the metaphysics Aristotle takes up the explanation and defense of the law of contradiction to negative teaching before proceeding to answer the problem of metaphysics what are the principles of being Aristotle passes in review the answers given by his predecessors he not only recounts the doctrines and opinions of the pre-sacratic philosophers thereby adding to his many titles that a founder of the history of philosophy but he also points out what seemed to him to be the shortcomings and imperfections of each school or system his criticism of Plato's theory of ideas is deserving of careful study because it is an unprejudiced examination of a great system of thought by one who was unusually well equipped for the task and also because it is the most natural and intelligible introduction to the positive portion of Aristotle's metaphysics in which he expounds his own views both Plato and Aristotle maintain that scientific knowledge is concerned with the universal compare a Socratic doctrine of concepts they agree in teaching that the world of sense is subject to change and that we must go beyond it to find the world of ideas here however they part company Plato places the world of ideas the region of scientific knowledge outside phenomena Aristotle places it in the sensible objects themselves it is therefore against the doctrine of a separate world of ideas that all Aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory is directed lowercase a in the first place Aristotle contends that the platonic theory of ideas is holy baron the ideas were intended to explain how things came to be and how they came to be known but they cannot be principles of being since they are not existent in things and they cannot be principles of knowledge since they exist apart from and have no intelligible relation to the things to be known to suppose that we know things better by adding to the world of our experience the world of ideas is as absurd as to imagine that we can count better by multiplying the numbers to be counted in a word the ideas are a meaningless duplication of sensible objects lowercase b in the next place Aristotle recognizes in the theory of ideas an attempt at solving the problem of motion and change indeed since the ideas are the only reality they must contain the principle of change where change is a reality but Plato by separating the ideas from the world of phenomena and by insisting on the static rather than on the dynamic phase of the ideas precludes all possibility of accounting for change by means of the ideas lowercase c moreover Aristotle finds several contradictions in the platonic theory he is not satisfied with the platonic doctrine of community between the idea and the phenomenon for if the participation of the idea by the phenomenon is anything more than a mere figure of speech if there is really part of the idea in the phenomenon there must be a prototype on which this participation is modeled if such a prototype exists there is for example a Tiritos Anthropos in addition to the absolute idea of man and the man who exists in the world of phenomena the significant fact is that Plato at one time describes the participation as methics in another as mimesis and ends by leaving it unexplained lowercase d finally the reason why Plato introduced the doctrine of ideas was because scientific knowledge must have for its object something other than the phenomenon now scientific knowledge has an object if ideas exist the validity of scientific knowledge does not require that the idea should exist apart from the phenomenon itself three positive teaching metaphysics as has been said is the inquiry into the highest principles of being a principle arché is that by which a thing is or is known the first problem of metaphysics is therefore to determine the relation between actuality and potentiality the first principles of being in the order of determination or differentiation actuality and telegya energia is perfection potentiality dunamis is the capability of perfection the former is the determining principle of being the latter is of itself indeterminate actuality and potentiality are above all categories they are found in all beings with the exception of one with a capital O whose being is all actuality in created beings then as we should say there is a mixture of potency and actuality this mixture is so to speak the highest metaphysical formula under which are included the compositions of matter and form substance and accident the soul and its faculties active and passive intellect etc the dualism of actual and potential pervades the metaphysics physics psychology and even the logic of Aristotle still potency and actuality are principles of being in its metaphysical determinations in the physical order they're enter into the constitution of concrete beings for other principles called causes iti a cause is defined as that which in any way influences the production of something it is therefore a principle in the order of physical determination the classes of causes are for matter hule form ados or morphe efficient cause to kineticon and final cross to who Henica of these matter and form are intrinsic constituents of being well efficient and final causes are extrinsic principles nevertheless these letter are true causes in as much as the effect depends on them matter or material cause is that out of which being is made bronze for example is the material cause of the statue matter is the substratum hippocaminon indeterminate but capable of determination it is the receptacle decticon of becoming and decay it can neither exist nor be known without form in a word it is potency matter in the condition of absolute potentiality is called first matter hule prote that is matter without any form second matter is matter in the condition of relative potentiality second matter possesses a form but because of its capability of further determination it is in potency to receive other forms form or formal cause is that into which a thing is made it is the principle of determination overcoming the indeterminateness of matter without it matter cannot exist it is actuality the Aristotelian notion of form like the Plutonic notion of idea was intended as a protest against the skepticism of the sophists and the pun metabolism of the Heraclitians form is the object of intellectual knowledge the unalterable essence of things which remains unchanged amid the fluctuations of accidental qualities like the idea the form is the plentitude of actual being for while matter is a reality it is real merely as a potency there is however a radical difference between the form and the idea the form exists in individual beings the idea exists apart from them Aristotle merely distinguished matter and form Plato not only distinguished but also separated the idea from the phenomenon the union of matter and form constitutes the individual or concrete substance from matter arise the imperfections limitations and individuating qualities from form come the essential unalterable attributes the specific nature of the substance matter then being presupposed as the common substratum of material existence a substance is constituted in its essential nature by the form hence it is that Aristotle identifies the form with the essence the quiddity the universal nature of a substance form is a second substance which while it cannot in here in another as in a subject may an account of its universality be predicated of many it would however be a serious mistake to represent Aristotle as reducing all reality to form and ending as Plato had begun with the doctrine of monism for matter in its generic concept enters into the definition of the specific nature and while it is not an actual it is a real principle of being Aristotle further develops his theory of the relation between matter and form by teaching that matter is destined to receive form it tends towards its form with something akin to desire for the absence of form is not mere negation it is privation sterecis Aristotle however explains that matter is not pure privation it is a positive something which of its nature is disposed to become determined by means of form efficient cause is the third principle of being it is defined as that by which that is by the agency of which the effect is produced ultimately it is form considered as operative for no agent can act except by virtue of the form which is the principle of its action as well as up its being hence the scholastic adage agere sequitor esse moreover all action is motion kinesis and motion is defined as the passing from potency to actuality head to duna may on toes and the legia head to uton this identification of action with motion and the definition of motion in terms of the actual and potential lead at once to a conclusion which is at first sight startling in its universality that all natural processes are processes of development and that action merely brings out latent possibilities by bringing into actuality those perfections which were already contained as potencies in the matter this generalization it may be remarked isn't perfect harmony with modern physical principles as for example with the law of the conservation of energy Aristotle it is true does not enter into the question of quantitative relations between the potential and the actual but the higher the human mind rises in its inquiries the less attention it pays to questions of quantitative equivalence and the more importance it attaches to the general notion of internal development final cause the fourth principle of being that on account of which the effect is produced is in a certain sense the most important of all the causes it not only determines whether the agent shall act but it also determines the mode and manner of the action and the measure of the effect produced so that if we could know the motive or end of an action we should be in possession of a most fruitful source of knowledge concerning the result of that action the final cause like the efficient is in ultimate analysis identical with form it is the form of the effect presented in intention and considered as a motive in as much as by its desirability it impels the agent to act by the reduction of efficient and final causes to formal cause the ultimate principles of finite being are reduced to two matter and form these are the two intrinsic essential constituents of the individual concrete object matter being the source of indeterminateness potency and imperfection while form is the source of specific determination actuality and perfection and of chapter 11 part 1