Tuesday, January 24, 2012
On Love and Knowledge
I find it interesting that the ancient quarrel between philosophers and poets is defined by the quarrel between Plato and poets. Plato's dialogues are in no way a standard philosophical treatise, while they may have the form of logical argument made of propositions, I am not inclined to believe that this narrative form is the most effective for conveying his thoughts. Would not a simple treatise beginning with axioms and then working to defend the thesis have been a better method to teach about ethics rather than a fictitious conversation between Socrates and other characters? Another area of interest brought up in the essay is the value of emotions as helping to complete an understanding of certain human experiences. While over emotional reactions are irrational an appropriate balance between emotion and reason is not an unreasonable state of mind or method of approaching ethical concepts. Thoughts anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand your point, but I still find myself in disagreement. Plato's dialogues are wonderful examples of the dialectic method of instruction in action - a method which I think is one of the best ways of imparting information so that the student will actually understand it. By presenting his theories (or the theories of Socrates) in this format, Plato brings the reader as close as possible under the circumstances to actually partaking in a philosophical discussion with his characters, and by extension himself. As one character asks a question of another, the reader has a chance to contemplate that question and draw their own conclusions before going on to read the views Plato presents. In a sense, Plato is instructing the reader by means of dialectic instruction (or, perhaps more appropriately in this context, the Socratic method). This style of writing invites the reader to think independently about the subject matter, rather than simply attempting to absorb the views of the writer without first considering them and understanding the reasoning behind them.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I also posted this on my own blog if you'd rather read it there.
You make a wonderful point, perhaps I overlooked the attributes of Plato's writing style. One point I would like to clarify is that often with an author Plato as an example, the reader will misinterpret the content to be that of the author's personal belies. Scholars assign certain views of women and other subjects within the Republic to be Plato's actual beliefs on what society should look like. While it is possible, we must remember that this piece is a hypothetical thought experiment, under ideal conditions which may be impossible. In a treatise Plato could qualify his argument with a statement to clarify that it is not his opinions, whereas the dialogue format may not make that as clear.
ReplyDelete