Plato offers a philosophic system that challenges us to look at the world in a different way. Typically we don’t think of the essential essence of a substance rather we loosely associate concepts together. Like what we did in class with chairs and how we talked about the form of a chair. The doctrine of the forms is probably the most useful aspect from Plato along with his theory of the soul. His metaphysics are used heavily in Christology and related theological fields.
The Phaedo dialogue is one of the most interesting dialogue’s penned by Plato. It ties in a variety of different topics ranging from ethics to epistemology. One of the key concepts put forth in this dialogue was the Theory of Recollection. This theory is the idea that all things that are known are in fact a remembering. A memory exists of their eternal forms from a previous existence, or incarnation. This is not to suggest that all knowledge is possibly a priori, but it means that our souls possess direct knowledge of the spiritual eternal realm. Furthermore, this also requires a preexistence of the soul. The soul for Plato is immortal and eternal. This further implicates that the soul exists natural in the realm of intelligible things. This harkens back to the likely story of Timaeus wherein the story of “creation” is recorded for Plato. Also this dialogue refers to the demiurge and the formation of matter. These dialogues, like all of them, go hand in hand and relay a new piece of the overall Platonic puzzle.
I guess i'm not totally sure that i understood everything that Plato was trying to tell us in PHAEDO...i get the idea that he thinks we all have an ideal knowledge almost before we're born, and the act of being born causes us to lose that knowledge, and we spend the rest of our lives trying to regain that understanding. While i understand this is what he believes...i still find it to be QUITE a stretch for me to try and see that as a possibility.
What do I think of Plato and Aristotle? I don't know if I am a little slow to understanding what these two philosphers had to say or I may just be normal. I find their thoughts to be a little to far stretched. I understand I think what plato is saying, when he discusses that our knowledge had to exist somewhere or somehow before we were even born, and that our body and souls are seperate. I also understand that we are trying to achieve happiness and do what is right in our lives according to the happiness by Aristotle. My overall observation is why? Why do I need to think this way. I feel like by worrying about the future somewhat in Aristotle's terms, over looks the present life I am living, and if I believe I had knowledge before I was born then where did that knowledge ultimatly begin? Did God create this or are we challenging God? I like the idea of studying these two different individuals to per se my own personality and life, but its hard for me to understand where their coming from our why they thought this way because I live in a compeltly different time period. There are only a few who stop and try to analyze or think like these two philosphers in their everyday lives(college professors haha). I honeslty think I need to do more research and studying to completly understand these educated philosphers.
Initially, I found Phaedo to be hard to read and difficult to understand but after going over it in class it was really quite interesting. However, I don’t know if I completely agree with the whole Theory of Recollection. Like, what Allan said I think that Plato and Aristotle at times take things a little too far. To say that that all things are known through remembering to me is absurd. So before I was born my soul knew things and basically I just have to remember them really sounds some what irrational and bizarre. I do agree with Plato view that the soul is immortal and eternal but the Theory of Recollection is something I find hard to believe.
It is very interesting to contrast Plato and Aristotle because they are so radically different in areas but their ideas are still related. Their division of the soul is very similar as well as their belief regarding the political nature of man. Furthermore, both believe in a contemplative life as the route to happiness. However, Aristotle hands on approach and teleology is in sharp contrast to Plato’s more ethereal ideas. Also, their writing styles are drastically different. Plato ties in multiple ideas in his Dialogues, whereas Aristotle lays his ideas on a topic directly. These two men are extremely influential in developing the Western philosophical tradition.
I think these fine students sum it up for me. I found it completely interesting to learn, but also found it a far stretch to grasp on to. The same with the soul; I believe it lives on eternally, but not as this identiy I am living now. I would love to take a class if one becomes available on either one of these gentlemen.
Preexistence of the soul is something I have always felt was a very interesting concept. I struggle to understand where or how the soul would have existed, but I do feel that we have access to knowledge and a realm that we do not have access to as humans, whether that location is a "Heaven" or something similar to that concept.
It is possible that when we die, we return to the realm that we previously existed in. I don't think that our souls can change, rather, we gain experience as human beings and take that experience to the realm that we previously existed in.
I could be totally wrong, but this is always something that I have felt.
I dont think it matters if your wrong Scott, and really...there is no way to prove you wrong. If people choose to believe in something and live their lives that way, then that is their natural God given right. I think the concept of our soul existing *before* and after death is an interesting concept. After all we hear it explained as eternal and it would make sense and be consistent if our soul existed before our body as well. It does make me think about why we would be where we are right now.
Other than those words I don't even think I can begin the pick up their points. Except, I would agree with Latonio in saying that the Theory of Recallection is a little farfetched. I can study something my whole life and not know what it really is...yet I already know what it is? That theory seems like it doesn't take into account that we make discoveries of things we have never seen before. It doesn't mean that we are recalling that information. I still can't tell you what a chair is...
Plato offers a philosophic system that challenges us to look at the world in a different way. Typically we don’t think of the essential essence of a substance rather we loosely associate concepts together. Like what we did in class with chairs and how we talked about the form of a chair. The doctrine of the forms is probably the most useful aspect from Plato along with his theory of the soul. His metaphysics are used heavily in Christology and related theological fields.
ReplyDeleteThe Phaedo dialogue is one of the most interesting dialogue’s penned by Plato. It ties in a variety of different topics ranging from ethics to epistemology. One of the key concepts put forth in this dialogue was the Theory of Recollection. This theory is the idea that all things that are known are in fact a remembering. A memory exists of their eternal forms from a previous existence, or incarnation. This is not to suggest that all knowledge is possibly a priori, but it means that our souls possess direct knowledge of the spiritual eternal realm. Furthermore, this also requires a preexistence of the soul. The soul for Plato is immortal and eternal. This further implicates that the soul exists natural in the realm of intelligible things. This harkens back to the likely story of Timaeus wherein the story of “creation” is recorded for Plato. Also this dialogue refers to the demiurge and the formation of matter. These dialogues, like all of them, go hand in hand and relay a new piece of the overall Platonic puzzle.
ReplyDeleteI guess i'm not totally sure that i understood everything that Plato was trying to tell us in PHAEDO...i get the idea that he thinks we all have an ideal knowledge almost before we're born, and the act of being born causes us to lose that knowledge, and we spend the rest of our lives trying to regain that understanding. While i understand this is what he believes...i still find it to be QUITE a stretch for me to try and see that as a possibility.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think of Plato and Aristotle? I don't know if I am a little slow to understanding what these two philosphers had to say or I may just be normal. I find their thoughts to be a little to far stretched. I understand I think what plato is saying, when he discusses that our knowledge had to exist somewhere or somehow before we were even born, and that our body and souls are seperate. I also understand that we are trying to achieve happiness and do what is right in our lives according to the happiness by Aristotle. My overall observation is why? Why do I need to think this way. I feel like by worrying about the future somewhat in Aristotle's terms, over looks the present life I am living, and if I believe I had knowledge before I was born then where did that knowledge ultimatly begin? Did God create this or are we challenging God? I like the idea of studying these two different individuals to per se my own personality and life, but its hard for me to understand where their coming from our why they thought this way because I live in a compeltly different time period. There are only a few who stop and try to analyze or think like these two philosphers in their everyday lives(college professors haha). I honeslty think I need to do more research and studying to completly understand these educated philosphers.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I found Phaedo to be hard to read and difficult to understand but after going over it in class it was really quite interesting. However, I don’t know if I completely agree with the whole Theory of Recollection. Like, what Allan said I think that Plato and Aristotle at times take things a little too far. To say that that all things are known through remembering to me is absurd. So before I was born my soul knew things and basically I just have to remember them really sounds some what irrational and bizarre. I do agree with Plato view that the soul is immortal and eternal but the Theory of Recollection is something I find hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting to contrast Plato and Aristotle because they are so radically different in areas but their ideas are still related. Their division of the soul is very similar as well as their belief regarding the political nature of man. Furthermore, both believe in a contemplative life as the route to happiness. However, Aristotle hands on approach and teleology is in sharp contrast to Plato’s more ethereal ideas. Also, their writing styles are drastically different. Plato ties in multiple ideas in his Dialogues, whereas Aristotle lays his ideas on a topic directly. These two men are extremely influential in developing the Western philosophical tradition.
ReplyDeleteHello All,
ReplyDeleteI think these fine students sum it up for me. I found it completely interesting to learn, but also found it a far stretch to grasp on to. The same with the soul; I believe it lives on eternally, but not as this identiy I am living now. I would love to take a class if one becomes available on either one of these gentlemen.
Preexistence of the soul is something I have always felt was a very interesting concept. I struggle to understand where or how the soul would have existed, but I do feel that we have access to knowledge and a realm that we do not have access to as humans, whether that location is a "Heaven" or something similar to that concept.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that when we die, we return to the realm that we previously existed in. I don't think that our souls can change, rather, we gain experience as human beings and take that experience to the realm that we previously existed in.
I could be totally wrong, but this is always something that I have felt.
I dont think it matters if your wrong Scott, and really...there is no way to prove you wrong. If people choose to believe in something and live their lives that way, then that is their natural God given right. I think the concept of our soul existing *before* and after death is an interesting concept. After all we hear it explained as eternal and it would make sense and be consistent if our soul existed before our body as well. It does make me think about why we would be where we are right now.
ReplyDeleteOther than those words I don't even think I can begin the pick up their points. Except, I would agree with Latonio in saying that the Theory of Recallection is a little farfetched. I can study something my whole life and not know what it really is...yet I already know what it is? That theory seems like it doesn't take into account that we make discoveries of things we have never seen before. It doesn't mean that we are recalling that information. I still can't tell you what a chair is...