According to Sophists, such as Protagoras, knowledge comes from our senses and it is about this physical world of change. Knowledge is at best a "common sense" about the world, and we should rely on our own experience rather than on abstractions and logics. For the Sophists, knowledge is not absolute but relative to the one "measuring it." Protagoras said, "man is the measure of all things," meaning that we make the yardstick and the rules of value and truth. There is no absolute, objective Truth, nor even an absolutely correct interpretation of things in this world. Instead, truth is a subjective reality, possibly different for different people. Each is the interpreter of his own truth, so truth is relative; although Protagoras must have admitted that some interpretations and beliefs about truth are better than others. And if some are better than others, then what is this yardstick? - This is a problem that Plato partly questioned in the THEAETETUS.
Plato was attempting to find the Knowledge which is real for everyone and everywhere. In fact his definition of knowledge is just this, because "knowledge" of objects in this world is not what he calls knowledge but is opinion, and he would say that opinion IS relative. Opinion comes from the senses, so the senses cannot be wholly trusted and knowledge is better attained (or recollected) when our minds are not attached to the senses.
Plato believed that knowledge could not be acquired from the senses and was not found in this changing world. Knowledge, for Plato, had to be absolute and objective, eternal and unchanging, fixed and complete; otherwise there could be no moral standards and no common basis for understanding and dialoging about the world we share, about the Polis we live in.
Knowledge is not about the things in this physical world of change because those objects are temporal and everchanging. The Knowledge which is not changing are called the "Forms". These Forms are the invisible "objects of thought" - though we should not say "of thought", because some thoughts are erroneous or opinions. The Forms are really distinct "objects" of Knowing, of Noesis, of [recollected] Insight. The highest Forms, probably Moral Forms, with the Good and Beauty at the top, are more abstract, less concrete, less definable, but mostly real and rich in value. The higher Forms allow one to better understand the lower ones (or divisions of them), and the Good ultimately illuminates all other knowledge.
These "Forms of Knowledge" are known intelligibly within the psyche or soul or mind, not acquired from the senses but from a recollection or awakening-remembrance within. You don't discover knowledge in the world itself; you discover or recollect it within. How can you find the ultimate measure of morals and values (such as good, beauty, justice) in the world? How can the senses know what is right or wrong. How can you find truth in the world outside? Truth and Morality is known within. And if this is real Truth or real Knowledge (ie. Forms), then it is objectively the same for all people, for all souls.
For
the Sophists, truth and morality are made up, invented, and
not
discovered. They are subjective conventional constructs vs.
objective
natural realities (as Plato saw it). The Sophists believe
that
we learn from our experiences and from the society we interact
with.
They acknowledged the importance of the social world in the
acquiring
of knowledge and in the learning of virtues. And
realizing
the influential impact we have upon each other, they
became
teachers and taught people how to better influence others.
They
taught rhetoric and how to make the most convincing, persuasive
argument
for the truth as one saw it. The Sophist philosophy took
acount
of the social reality of the democratic Polis and knew that
our
use of speech and argument would ultimately determine the
conventional
laws and actions of the State. They were more
"realists",
while Plato was more of an "idealist".
Plato did believe that some knowledge, or at least a pathway to real Knowledge is acquired through a process of social dialectic. This dialectic might need a teacher or midwife. The dialectic is a philosophical dialogue which presents an hypothesis, or definition of Form, for the listeners to examine, then acknowledge or refute. Through this process a teacher such as Socrates would break down people's arrogant and misguided opinions and false beliefs, until they were perplexed enough to be fully open and desiring of the Truth, so that Socrates, the midwife, could help in their recollection or birth of Real Thought-Forms.
The
immortality of the soul is important for Plato, because the
rational
soul is that which knows the Forms of Objective Knowledge.
This
soul is the vehicle or chariot for understanding Truth, Value,
and
Virtue. Knowledge is innate, inherent and self-evident in the
soul,
and the soul is that which directly knows this Knowledge of
Truth
and Virtue. Plato argues for the objectivity and absoluteness
of
the knowledge of existence and morality. We have the potential
for
knowing these absolute Truths, and especially absolute values
such
as Good and Beauty, because They eternally exist in the
immortal
soul. They are recollected in the soul, and this is HOW we
know
absolute, objective Truths. We know what is true and good and
beautiful,
within the mind and in the world, because these Truths
are
already eternally existing in a non-material realm (of Mind or
Soul)
that is independent of the world of change and becoming. So,
the
soul provides us with an eternal "container" of Knowledge
that
is
free of the world of change and unconditioned by it.
Plato
believes that the soul has all Truth within it, because it
is
of the world of Being (free of the world of becoming) and is a
kind
of container or "perceptive vehicle" for the eternal Forms.
Though
in the chariot myth, the soul doesn't seem to have all
Knowledge
pre-existent in it, but acquires this Knowledge through an
ascent
upward to the world of Forms and then incarnates with this
pre-determined
capacity. Reincarnation comes into this, because
each
particular soul struggles to ascend from the world of
sensuality
to the pure world of Knowledge, and the degree of this
adventure
determines the person's capability in life. This can
explain
the differences in people, in their capacity for
recollection
and virtuous behavior.
Yet, I don't believe this myth actually implies another world of experience between lifetimes, but that it is an analogy about this world and this life, and that the soul, here, is in a continual struggle between the poles of its appetitive and rational natures. As with much of Plato and the allegories he presents, I don't think anyone can know for certain what is literally believed, except through recollection of course. I must quickly note a distinction made between the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of the soul/psyche. The rational would be immortal and free of this temporal world, while the appetitive would be dependent upon the sensual world, and the spirited could go in either direction; but I don't want to dwell on these speculations.
What Plato does want to show is that the condition of the soul determines the capacity for rational moral behavior. A more knowing soul makes a better person and improved moral action. Knowing is of Being and knowing is of Value. The soul IS more Being when it is more knowing. And knowing is what makes Being valued. The soul is immortal because it is of Being which is eternally Real. The "substance" of the soul is Being and its condition is in accordance with its knowing of Being or its knowing of the Forms. Thus, the soul is actually eternal "potential Being" or "potential Knowing", having all Knowledge potentially within; and the Knowing of Being, or Knowing of the Forms of Being, or Recollection of Itself, is Being actualized or the condition of the soul realized. The soul is immortal, because its substantial being is immortal and the Forms of its being are immortal. The Forms of Knowing Being are eternal, so the soul which Knows these Forms, this Being, is immortal. The virtue/value of the soul is in its knowingness or recollection, and this determines the virtue of behavior, as well as the ability to meaningfully understand the world we live in.
EXTENDED
THOUGHTS ON FORMS AND SOUL
Obviously,
Plato is concerned with proving that there IS an
objective
reality which is unchanging, and not just relative and in
flux
as we sense in this physical world. He doesn't want to deny the
world
of change, like Parmenides, but he doesn't want to be trapped
in
a Sophistic argument for relativism (especially in moral theory).
So,
he maintains a dualism of soul/body, Intelligible/sensible,
Eternal/changing,
One/many, Forms/appearances. But although there is
an
implied hierarchy of value in this, Plato is not anti-world or
anti-senses.
Plato is not a skeptic. He does not believe that the world is an illusion or that knowledge is unattainable. The world is not an illusion. Though its appearances can be misleading, it is nonetheless formulated from Real Objective Truths (Forms). Neither is Plato "other-worldly" or opposed to sensory experiences. Granted, he does think body pleasures and sensory excitements (Rock 'n Roll and the Fun Zone) trap our attention and can keep us from focusing on the rational Truths. But the senses are not abandoned or disdained; they are merely inadequate in order to arrive at the Truth.
Plato may not have empirically studied the natural world in the way that Aristotle did, but that doesn't mean he denied any value in scientific study - he just thought that this empirical study of natural conditions was not equal to the study of the Forms which [a priori] make up those conditions. He would say that philosophical inquiry and reasoning is necessary; that mere empirical science, or what we sense as true, is not enough and can mislead us without philosophy. Natural science can answer some questions but not all, and this is where the Socratic method finds its significance as a way of philosophical reasoning. Questions of value and moral truths, such that science does not even attempt to answer (nor could in a chemistry lab), are, for Plato, not merely relative to personal or social perspectives and agreements, but are actual truths (Forms) which can be recognized by the rational soul.
The physical world is not disregarded or disdained. Plato is profoundly interested in the world, in social and physical realities. He writes a political theory in the REPUBLIC and a physical theory in the TIMAEUS. This world is the only world he interested in and he wants to find the invisible, non-sensual, divine Truth within it. The world actually leads us to see what is good and rational, because the whole world embodies the Forms, or partakes of Forms, to some relative degree. So, it can lead us to the Forms and to Knowledge.
Plato's soul, though independent of the body, is not apathetic to the body or to the world. It would encourage the embodiment and development of Eternal Forms and Virtues. Plato's philosopher-king is concerned with such embodiment in the overall society, and all who find their way out of the cave feel obligated to come back to serve the world (as I have reluctantly done). Mystical revelation is certainly not the final goal of Socrates, but is, instead, the enlightenment needed to truly serve the Good in this world. Plato is certainly not a materialist, but neither is he a renunciate, and he is concerned with understanding the world and making life better.
The soul is of the Intelligible world, but it forgets (or loses attention of) this innate knowing as it becomes engrossed in the physical body and world; and yet, it remembers itself by way of the body and world. The recollection is true knowledge. It is certainty. This is when one knows the truth within, without any doubt, because it is recognized from within; whereas one might have beliefs about the world, which are mere opinions because they have not been verified by inner recollection, only by sensory experiences which may change tomorrow.
Soul is the mediator between the sensible and Intelligible worlds. Its higher aspect is eternal, consisting of the unchanging Forms, while the lower aspect is changing and growing in the sensory world. The problem here is that there is still a need to relate the higher with the lower. If the higher soul contemplates the eternal Forms, while the lower passionately participates in the sensory world, then is this an unbridgeable division? Not so if we say that the higher soul contemplates upon the eternal Forms within the sensory world, which the lower soul is in growing contact with. The rational soul is actually waking up to itself, or to knowledge, through the intelligible recognition of Forms found in the sensed world.
The
ladder of ascent, as described by Diotima in the Symposium,
leads
to the Absolute, Eternal Form of Beauty, by way of the
beautiful
forms found in the world. Thus, the greater Form is not
divorced
from the sensed world. On the contrary, the sensed world
provides
the ladder and is the medium for our recognition of
Absolute
Beauty. First, we recognize the beauty in another, then in
many,
and then we can know what is that Beauty in all these various
forms,
and we will become a lover of the [general] Beauty in all
forms
having such. In fact, we begin to see this Beauty everywhere,
for
It is (there in some degree of illumination). Finally we
realize
that what Beauty "is" and how it is created is in how we
recognize
those things of the world, in "how we see it". It IS in
the
mind of the beholder. Because in this communion, this
contemplation
of Absolute Beauty, "beholding beauty with the eye of
the
mind," now needing not the particulars, nor the ladder, one has
become
`absorbed' in that Eternal Reality, seeing only Beauty,
inside
and out, and thus has attained immortality.
We
might ask what is virtuous or beautiful in another. What are
we
looking for, or what are we seeing? There is an "as such"
Idea or
Form
of beauty that is real, because there is this quality-as-such
of
virtue or beauty found in different people who do not appear very
much
alike. So what is it that we see in these different people
that
we would name the virtue of beauty? It's not a particular,
exact
form. A redwood tree does not have to imitate the form of an
oak
tree in order to be beautiful. I may act in a different manner
than
my neighbor, and still both of us are virtuous. Why? What's in
it
that is the virtue or beauty "as such"? What is the One
beauty
within
the many, the One known as beauty itself?
Plato asserts that this one within the many is stable and unchanging, while the particular of the Form is not. The Form is thought to be independent of and prior to the world of sensible things. It is also independent and free of mixing with other Forms, and because of this we cannot find a Pure Form in the world since worldly forms are always mixtures of different Pure Forms. We might ask here whether the opposites (found in the world) of good and bad, truth and false, beautiful and ugly, are Forms. This kind of question is posed in Parmenedies, and I think Plato's best answer would be that the "opposites" of Forms are really the lack of Them and not "other-opposite" Forms.
The Pure Form of justice, for instance, cannot be found in the world, because any form of justice in this world is somewhat mixed up with other qualities, and it is dependent upon the situational context. The context can change, since the world changes, so no pure example of the Form of Justice can be found. Still, there is something real and unchanging in the essential Idea of Justice. We recognize the properties of a certain Form manifesting in the particular object or person, and that Form does not lose its perfection or purity of property by being in the person, even though the person does not embody It perfectly. The Form still experiences itself independently in its own purity of property, however it is manifesting in the world or mixing with other properties.
So what is it that makes an action just, when sometimes it is just to forgive and other times it is just to punish? The answer to this question cannot be found sensibly but only rationally; though, the senses certainly play a part in the whole inquiry - they help us recollect what the Form is and they set the context for the application of it. The sense are misleading without intelligent interpretation, and we can only find answers to such questions as what is justice through the rational mind (and the dialectic process) and recollection or Intuition.
This explains Socrates' search for definitions in what his interloctors are asking about. If we want to know how to be virtuous we need to know what virtue is as such, and the theory of Forms is an attempt to explain this, because we cannot rely upon a definition taken from the world of senses and changing circumstances. This would result in a relative definition, which would have no use as a "form" of measuring actions. There has to be some absolute knowing of what is virtue and what is not, despite the changes of circumstances and the many possible forms of virtuous behavior. If there is not, then the skeptics and the Sophist relativists seem to win the argument.
The
Beautiful and the Good are not completely describable. One
can
define them, but any definition cannot be wholly adequate. Still
we
have knowledge of them within the soul. I can recognize the
beautiful
or the Good, even without being able to describe them. I
may
be seeking the Good as an Ideal, while not being able to
actually
see the exact form of It. This is because It IS Real, but
not
an actual object or `form' (as we find in this 3-dimensional
world).
I
really think that the translation as `form' is misleading.
Plato's
Forms are not really objects: they are not 3-dimensional and
we
can't see them. And, unlike a circle or square, which can be
formulated
in the mind to some degree of exactitude, and can be
found
to an aapproximate degree in the world; Justice cannot be
form-ulated
in the same way, because there is no one "form" of
Justice,
as though I could produce on video a short scene that I
declare
as the one and only "form" of Justice (which, would be
reasonable
if the mathematical analogy were correct here). A circle
is
a circle, but Justice, or the Good, are abstract, undelineated
concepts.
They are really qualities or virtues of Being, not ideal
formulated
objects.
The Forms are necessary truths, self-existing and self-evident. If there were nothing square in this world, the square would still be a reality. It is something that pre-exists for all eternity. One does not need to find a square thing in the world before knowing what a square is, and the square exists before anyone is aware of it. It is not something made up in the mind, but it is found in the mind. Objects of perception may participate in squareness, "being as a square", but they are not the real, eternal square.
Analogous to mathematical forms, the Forms of Good and Justice are eternally self-existing and self-evident, and we can recognize whether a man or his behavior is similar to this Form or not - not because the Form has a certain size or shape or behavior (if this were the case, then there would be only one possible `form' of Good in the world - as though all people of the Good wear bow ties and black shoes and carry the Bible) - but because the properties of the Good can be found or not found in any particular behavior. Plato, or Socrates, does not seem to really describe anything or make any clear definitions that would point us to one "form of" Good or Truth or Beauty. This is because there is no such "one form".
All that Plato can really assert is that one can objectively Recognize the Good, the Truth, the Beauty within particulars and acts. We can't see exactly what the Form is, but we can know it (or recognize it) when we see manifestations of it. Analogous to this is in the eating of ice cream: I can't describe or formulate what is the "good" that I experience in some ice creams, but if I taste mint flavor I recognize it as good, while if I taste tuty-fruity I almost barf and I know it is not good. That's a lousy analogy for eternal Forms, but my point is that the knowing of a quality or virtue can be direct, without analysis or comparison. The "third man" argument is philosophical sophistry. The Forms are metaphysically different than objects and do not exemplify their own quality - They are the quality itself or that which patterns the object. Or another interpretation is that a Form is That which we Know or Recollect as Noesis - the Form is "Form of Knowing", Knowing Being, and the Knowledge of Eternal Being makes the soul immortal.