PLATO

 

“An unexamined life is not worth living.”[1]

 

On Socrates as a Source for Self Knowledge

 

We can identify three important aspects of Socrates’ ethical thinking. The first is the need for self-knowledge. In this he was only taking up a maxim associated with the oracle at Delphi, which is variously attributed to Thales, Phenomoe, Chilon and others of the traditional sages: ‘Know Thyself’. It remains important and salutary.

 

            “We seek to know the moving of each sphere,

            And the strange cause of the ebb and flow of Nile,

            But of that clock within our breasts we bear,

            The subtle motions we forget the while.

 

            “We that acquaint ourselves with every zone,

            And pass both tropics and behold the poles,

            When we come home, are to ourselves unknown,

            And unacquainted still with our own souls.”

 

So the Elizabethan Sir John Davies, and old Thomas Fuller asked with similar pertinence,

 

            “Who hath sailed about the world of his own heart, sounded each creek,           surveyed each corner, but that still remains much Terra Incognita to      himself?”[2]

 

 

Socrates & Know Thyself

 

The deepest cause lay in the fascinating personality of Socrates, in his power of “making others better”. This was his end and aim; the moral improvement of mankind. This however could not be effected by moral sermons, but only by personal intercourse and setting men to work on themselves. The underlying idea here was self-knowledge which the Delphic oracle enjoined.[3]

 

 

“Know Thyself” from Plato’s Dialogues

 

“So that the pure and genuine knowledge of ourselves circumscribed in scientific boundaries, must be, as we have said, considered as the most proper principle of all philosophy and of the doctrine of Plato. For, where is it proper to begin, except from the purification and perfection of ourselves, and whence the Delphic God exhorts us to begin? For, as those who enter the Eleusinian grove are ordered by an inscription not to enter into the innermost part of the temple, if they are uninitiated in the highest of the Mysteries so the inscription ‘Know Thyself’ on the Delphic temple manifests as it appears to me the mode of returning to a divine nature, and the most useful path to purification, all but penetratingly asserting to the intelligent that one who knows themself beginning from [the very beginning of all] may be able to be joined with that divinity who unfolds into light the whole of truth, and is the leader uninitiated both in the lesser and greater Mysteries, is unadapted to participate the providence of God. Hence then let us also begin conformably to the mandate of the god, and let us investigate in which of his dialogues Plato especially makes the vision of our essence his principal design, that from hence we may also make the commencement of the Platonic writings.”[4]

 

In the Phaedrus he then goes on to state the necessity of learning Self Knowledge:

 

Phaedrus

If our sceptic, with his somewhat crude science, means to reduce every one of them (Myths) to the standard of probability, he will need a deal of time for it. I myself have certainly no time for the business, and I will tell you why, my friend. I cannot as yet “Know Myself” as the inscription at Delphi enjoins, and so long as that ignorance remains it seems to me ridiculous to inquire into extraneous matters. Consequently I do not bother about such things, but accept the current beliefs about them, and direct my inquires, as I have said, rather to myself, to discover whether I really am a more complex creature and more puffed up with pride that Typhon, or a simpler, gentler being whom heaven has blessed with a quite, un-Typhonic nature.[5]

 

Here Plato combines the two Maxims found on the Temple, emphasising the exhortation to “Nothing Too Much” or Temperance:

 

Charmides

Socrates: Then, as would seem, in doing good he may act wisely or temperately, and be wise and temperate, but not know his own wisdom and temperance?

 

Charmides: But that, Socrates, he said, is impossible, and therefore if this is, as you imply, the necessary consequence of any of my previous admissions, I will withdraw them and will not be ashamed to acknowledge that I made a mistake, rather than to admit that a man can be temperate or wise who does not know himself. For I would almost say that self-knowledge is the very essence of temperance, and in this I agree with him who dedicated the inscription “Know Thyself” at Delphi. That inscription, if I am not mistaken, is put there as a sort of salutation which the god addresses to those who enter the temple - as much as to say that the ordinary of “Hail!”[6] is not right, and that the exhortation “Be Temperate!” is far better. If I rightly understand the meaning of the inscription, the god speaks to those who enter his temple, not as men speak, but whenever a worshipper enters, the first word which he hears is “Be Temperate!” This, however, like a prophet he expresses in a sort of riddle, for “Know Thyself!” and “Be Temperate!” are the same.”[7]

And later in the same dialogue:

Socrates: Then only the temperate person will know himself, and be able to discern what he really knows and does not know, and have the power of judging what other people likewise know and think they know, in cases where they do know, and again, what they think they know, without knowing it; everyone else will be unable. And so this is being temperate, or temperance, and knowing oneself - that one should know what one knows and what one does not know. Is that what you mean?[8]

 

Surely no higher recommendations are needed to encourage one to gain Knowledge of Oneself. But, it is more than the ‘beginning of all philosophy’, it is also the beginning of “recognizing all that which is Divine, and God”[9] as Plato states in the following extract:

 

Alcibiades I.

Socrates. Well then, could we ever know what art makes the man himself better, if we were ignorant of what we are ourselves?

Alcibiades. Impossible.

Soc. And is it an easy thing to Know Oneself, and was it a mere scamp who inscribed these words on the temple at Delphi; or is it a hard thing, and not a task for anybody?

Alc. I have often thought, Socrates, that it was for anybody; but often too, that it was very hard.

Soc. But, Alcibiades, whether it is easy or not, here is the fact for us all the same; if we have that knowledge, we are like to know what pains to take over ourselves; but if we have it not, we never can.

Alc. That is so.

Soc. Come then, in what way can the same-in-itself be discovered? For thus we may discover what we are ourselves; whereas if we remain in ignorance of it we must surely fail.

Alc. That is so.

Soc. The point suggested in that remark a moment ago, that we should first consider the same-in-itself; for surely we cannot say anything has more absolute possession of ourselves than the soul.

Alc. No, indeed.

Soc. And is it proper to take the view that you and I are conversing with each other, while we make use of words, by intercourse of soul with soul?

Alc. Quite so.

Soc. Then he who enjoins a knowledge of oneself bids us become acquainted with the soul. And anybody who gets to know something belonging to the body knows the things that are his, but not himself. And if the soul too, my dear Alcibiades, is to know herself, she must surely look at a soul, and especially at that region of it which occurs the virtue of a soul - wisdom, and at any other part of a soul which resembles this? And can we find any part of the soul that we can call more divine than this, which is the seat of knowledge?

Alc. We cannot.

Soc. Then this part of her resembles God, and whoever looks at this, and comes to know all that is divine, will thereby gain the best Knowledge of Himself.

Alc. Apparently.[10]

 

Let us see what the later Neoplatonic philosopher, Proclus, thought of the dialogue:

 

Proclus: Commentary on Plato’s Alcibiades I.

 

The principal end of the dialogue is to lead us to the knowledge of ourselves, and to show that our essence consists in forms and reason, that it produces all sciences from itself, and knows in itself everything divine, and the forms of nature. For the soul does not possess an outside knowledge of things, nor, like an unwritten tablet, does it externally receive the images of divine ideas. Now, therefore, Alcibiades begins to know himself and also to know that he is converted to himself; and knowing his own energy and knowledge, he becomes one with the thing known. This mode of conversion, therefore, leads the soul to the contemplation of its essence, hence it is necessary, that the soul should first receive a knowledge of herself; in the second place, that she should consider the powers which she is allotted; and, in the third place, how she is impelled to ascend from things more imperfect as far as to first causes. Alcibiades, therefore, is now converted through energy to energy, and through this to that which energizes.[11]

 

Proclus; The Theology of Plato

 

“Socrates in the Alcibiades rightly observes that the soul entering into herself will behold all other things and deity itself. For, on verging to her own union, and to the centre of all life, laying aside the multitude, and the variety of the all-manifold powers which she contains, she ascends to the highest watch-tower of beings. And as in the most holy of mysteries they say that the mystics at first meet with the multiform and many shaped genera, which are hurled forth before the gods, but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved, and guarded by the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom divine illumination, and divested of their garments, as they say, participate of a divine nature; the same mode as it appears to me takes place in the speculation of wholes. For the soul, when looking at things posterior to herself, beholds only the shadows and images of beings; but when she turns to herself she evolves her own essence and the reasons which she contains. And at first, indeed, she only, as it were, beholds herself, but when she penetrates more profoundly in the Knowledge of Herself, she finds in herself both intellect and the orders of beings. But when she proceeds into her interior recesses, and into the adytum [inner shrine], as it were, of the soul, she perceives, with her eyes nearly closed, the genus of the gods, and the unities of beings. For all things reside in us according to the peculiarity of soul and through this we are naturally capable of knowing all things, by exciting the powers and the images of wholes which we contain.”[12]

 

“Looking therefore at God, we should make use of him as the most beautiful mirror, and among human concerns we should look at the virtue of the soul; and thus by so doing shall we not especially see and Know our very Selves?”[13]

 

“Everything in the dialogues of Plato, in the same manner as in the mysteries, is referred to the whole perfection of the particulars which are investigated. Agreeably to this, Plato, in the very beginning of this dialogue appears to me to indicate in a beautiful manner the scope of the whole composition For his design as we have said was to unfold our nature, and the whole essence according to which each of us is defined; and to unveil the Delphic mandate Know Thyself through demonstrative methods.”[14]

 

 

Dio Chrysostom Following Plato

 

Dio Chrysostom [40 - 120 C.E.], in his dialogue, On Servants, follows Plato closely from the Alcibiades I.

 

Diogenes. “Is there any one, then, who can make use of himself who does not know himself?”

Acquaintance. “How could he? Replied the other.”

D. “Because the one who does not understand man is unable to ‘use’ man?”

A. “Yes, because he cannot.”

D. “So he who does not understand himself would not be able to make use of himself, would he?”

A. “I believe not.”

D. “Have you ever heard of the inscription at Delphi; ‘Know Thyself’?”

A. “I have.”

D. “Is it not plain that the god gives the command to all, in the belief that they should know themselves?”

A. “It would seem so.”

D. “You, therefore, would be included in the ‘all’?”

A. “Certainly.”

D. “So then you also do not know yourself?”

A. “I believe not.”

D. “And not knowing yourself, you do not know man; and not knowing man, you are unable to ‘use’ man;...”[15]

 

 

“Plato was a Philosopher and a Poet, But Not a Mystic!”

 

This quote comes from the introduction to The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Hamilton and Cairns. This work is a standard text used in schools and universities in the English speaking world. A student reading such a negative assertion in the introduction would be seriously mislead.

 

“Plato was a philosopher and a poet, but not a mystic. He was a poet in the sense that he wrote formal verse and is the author of one of the most notable of the Greek epigrams. Beyond that, as the author of the dialogues, he was a philosopher-poet exercising consummate artistry in his presentation of ideas... But his poetic insight has often been confused with mysticism, even with mysticism’s most obscurantist manifestations. His discussion of the One and the Many, the doctrine of love and eternal beauty, the Demiurgos, and similar matters, have all been mistakenly used, by mystics and occultists, as grounds for their doctrines. He has been a source of inspiration to many types of mysticism but his writings have been repeatedly misread. This misunderstanding has been greatly promoted and popularised by the writings of Philo and Plotinus. But the difference between Plato and the mysticism that has attached itself to his philosophy is essential. Plato’s aim is to take the reader by steps, with as severe a logic as the conversational method permits, to an insight into the ultimate necessity of reason and he never hesitates to submit his own ideas to the harshest critical scrutiny... But the beliefs of the mystics are not products of critical examination and logical clarification; they are, on the contrary, a series of apprehensions, flashes, based on feeling, denying the rational order. The mystic’s reports of his experiences are beyond discussion inasmuch as they are subjective and emotional; they must be accepted, by one who wishes to believe them, as a matter of faith, not knowledge. Plato’s view of the world is that of an intelligible system that man can know by disciplined intellect alone. He was, in fact, the founder of logic, a logician and a poet, but he was not a mystic, he never exalted feeling above reason.”[16]

 

 

Plato: Mystic or Not?

 

“Plato was a philosopher and a poet, but was not a mystic.”[17]

 

The term ‘Mystic’ has many definitions, but most commentators agree the true mystic is one who has had a ‘Mystical Experience’. This is not a circular argument as it may seem at first. W.T. Stace in his Teachings of the Mystics, states:

 

“By the word ‘Mystic’ I shall always mean a person who himself has had a mystical experience. Often the word is used in a much wider and looser way. Anyone sympathetic to mysticism is apt to be labelled a mystic.”[18]

 

And F.C. Happold, in his work Mysticism, a Study and Anthology, writes:

 

“To speak more generally, mysticism has its font in what is the raw material of all religion and is also the inspiration of much of philosophy, poetry, art and music, a consciousness of a ‘beyond’, of something, which though it is interwoven with it, is not of the eternal world of material phenomena, of an ‘unseen’ over and above the seen. In the developed mystic this consciousness is present in an intense and highly specialized form.”[19]

 

Plato, in his writings, never admits ot having a mystical experience. Socrates admitted it publicly and was executed on a charge of impiety! Plato was not so stupid or ill advised as to follow the footsteps of his master to certain destruction, However in several of his dialogues, such as the Phaedrus and Alcibiades I, Plato describes the ‘mystical experience’ so intimately that it is more than probable he is writing from personal knowledge.

 

One of the great translators of Plato, F.C. Cornford, many of whose translations are used in Hamilton and Cairns’ collection states clearly;

 

“The last and greatest attempt to formulate the mystical faith in rational terms was made by Plato,...”

 

Platonism, if we take it to mean principally the theory of Forms or ‘Ideas’, will turn out to belong to the mystic tradition.”[20]

 

Cornford then goes on to connect Plato’s mysticism with his contact with Pythagoreanism, the archetypical mystics of the ancient Greek world. Most scholars recognize this connection with the Pythagoreans, of Italy and Sicily, with whom Plato was known to associate.

 

“But I agree with the opinion of the majority of scholars that what put Plato in the way of expanding these hints into a new transcendental psychology was his personal contact with the Pythagoreans of West Greece when he visited, them about 390 B. C. E.”

So writes E. R. Dodds, in his ‘The Greeks and the Irrational’.[21]

 

“There is, for instance, a marked mystical element in Plato, which later developed into Neoplatonism, which,... profoundly influenced Christian mysticism.”

 

Well said by F.C. Happold in his ‘Mysticism’. However many modern commentators deny that Plato was a mystic, they are refuted by history itself. Platonism is at the foundation of all western mysticism, Christian or secular.

 

The tendency of modern scholars to ignore what the ancients themselves thought, and indeed to correct their ‘errors’, is not conducive to sound scholarship. If Plotinus and his followers truly believed their mystic way was commenced from the house of Plato, how can we say they were wrong. There is the fact that Plato was considered a mystic and was studied in a mystical sense for countless generations by both pagans and Christians. It would be as absurd as stating in the introduction of a new translation of the ‘New Testament “that Jesus was a teacher and healer but not a mystic.” The ‘Mystical Church’ exists and no amount of scholars can deny the fact from their own personal opinion. If Plato was not a mystic, millions of intelligent thinkers over thousands of years have been mistaken.

 

It takes a mystic to recognize a mystic. One who has never had a mystical experience would not know what to look for as evidence. Plotinus is a recognized mystic, some would say one of the greatest. Porphyry reports that while he was studying with Plotinus his master had numerous mystical experiences, (though he himself had only one). However, Plotinus acknowledged Plato as his mystical master. The ‘Divine Plato’ was acknowledged as a mystic by the mystically inclined Church Fathers in their earliest writings. St. Augustine almost worships Plato the mystic and bases his Christian mysticism on Plato’s writings.

 

“Socrates is the type of excellence in practical wisdom, while Pythagoras concentrated on the contemplative, for which he was equipped by his intellectual power. It was Plato’s great claim to fame that he brought philosophy to its perfection by joining together these two strands... It is well known that Socrates was in the habit of concealing his knowledge, or his beliefs; and Plato approved of that habit. The result is that it is not easy to discover his own opinion, even on important matters... If Plato says that the wise man is the man who imitates, knows and loves this God, and that participation in this God brings man happiness, what need is there to examine other philosophers? There are none who come nearer to us than the Platonists...However, if the philosophers had reached any conclusion which could be a sufficient guide to the good life and to the attainment of ultimate felicity, it would be such men who would more rightly be accorded divine honours. How much better and more honourable would it be to have a temple to Plato where his books were read,..”[22].

 

“The last and greatest attempt to formulate the mystical faith in rational terms was made by Plato... Platonism, if we take it to mean principally the theory of Forms or ‘Ideas’, will turn out to belong to the mystic tradition,...we have every reason to connect the change of tone and of doctrine from the Socratic to the mystic group [of dialogues] with these opportunities of contact with Pythagoreanism, a type of philosophy which seems to have been little known to the Athens of Plato’s youth.”[23]

 

If I am right in my tentative guess about the historical antecedents of the Pythagorean movement, Plato in effect cross-fertilised the tradition of Greek rationalism with magico - religious ideas whose remoter origins belong to the northern shamanistic culture... Such men prepared the way for Plato; but I should guess that it was Plato himself who by a truly creative act transposed these ideas definitively from the plane of revelation to the plane of rational argument.”

 

“Of the pseudo-sciences of augury and hepatoscopy he permited himself to speak with thinly veiled contempt, but “the madness that comes by divine gift,” the madness that inspires the prophet or the poet, or purges men in the Corybantic rite, is treated as if it were a real intrusion of the supernatural into human life.”[24] [See the Phaedrus]

 

“That is not to say that there were no mystical strains in the Greek transition from a primitive polytheistic naturalism to rational philosophy. There is, for instance, a marked mystical element in Plato, which later developed into that NeoPlatonism, which,.. profoundly influenced Christian mysticism. It was inevitable that there should be, for no rational philosophical system can alone satisfy the deep religious and psychological needs inherent in mankind,..”[25]

 

 

On the Style and Self Preservation of Plato.

 

Socrates; “Is this, then, the reason, Euthyphro, why I am prosecuted, because when any one says such things about the gods, I am vexed at hearing them? And for this, it seems, some one will say that I commit a great sin. But tell me, for friendship’s sake, do you really believe that these things are so?”

Euthyphro: “Yes, Socrates and more wonderful things than these, of which the multitude know nothing.”

Soc.: “Do you then also believe that there has really been war among the gods, and dire quarrels and battles, and many other such things, as are told by the poets?.. Are we to say that these tales are true, Euthyphro?”

Euth.: “Not only these, O Socrates, but, as I said just now, I will, if you like, relate to you many other tales concerning the gods, which, I am sure, you will be astonished to hear.”[26]

 

If Plato, after proposing to write about the theology of the Athenians, had then been displeased with it, and accused it of containing tales of the quarrels of the gods among themselves, and of singing how some had intercourse with their children, took vengeance upon their fathers, and brothers upon brothers, and other things of this kind - if, I say, Plato had taken these stories and openly censured them, I think he would have afforded to the Athenians an occasion for showing their wickedness again by killing him, just as they killed Socrates. But since he would not have preferred life to truthfulness, and saw that he should be able to preserve both life and truth, he gave the part of the Athenians to ‘Euthyphro’, a boastful and stupid person, and especially bad in theology, but represented Socrates in his own person, and in his particular style, in which he was accustomed to converse with and refute every one.[27]

 

If any man ever yet taught a genuine and complete system of philosophy, it was Plato. For the followers of Thales were constantly engaged in the study of Nature; and the school of Pythagoras wrapped all things in mystery; and Xenophanes and his followers, by stirring contentious discussions, caused philosophers much dizziness, but yet gave them no help... Plato, however, the same, was the first to make a distinction, asserting that there was one kind of study concerned with the nature of the universe, and another with human affairs, and another with dialectic. But he maintained that we could not take a clear view of human affairs, unless the divine were previously discerned.[28]

 

 

Plato: His Political Philosophy. From his Seventh Letter.

 

The origin of this creed is a tale that young and old may well hear, and I will try to tell you the story from the beginning, for the moment is opportune. Once upon a time, in my youth, I cherished, like many another, the hope of entering upon a political career as soon as I came of age. It fell out that political events took the following course. There were many who heaped abuse on the form of government then prevailing, and a revolution occurred. In this revolution fifty-one men set themselves up as a government,... Some of these happened to be relatives and acquaintances of mine, who accordingly invited me forthwith to join them, assuming my fitness for the task. No wonder that, young as I was, I cherished the belief they would lead the city from an unjust life, as it were, to habits of justice and ‘manage’ it, as they put it, so that I was intensely interested to see what would come of it.

 

Of course I saw in a short time that these men made the former government look in comparison like an ‘age of gold’. Among other things they sent an elderly man, Socrates, a friend of mine, who I should hardly be ashamed to say was the justest man of his time, in company with others, against one of the citizens to fetch him forcibly to be executed. Their purpose was to connect Socrates with their government, whether he wished or not. He refused and risked any consequences rather than become their partner in wicked deeds. When I observed all this-and some other similar matters of importance - I withdrew in disgust from the abuses of those days. Not long after came the fall of these and their whole system of government.

 

Once more, less hastily this time, but surely, I was moved by the desire to take part in public life and in politics. As it chanced some of those in control brought against this associate of mine, Socrates, whom I have mentioned, a most sacrilegious charge, which he least of all men deserved. They put him on trial for impiety and the people condemned and put to death the man who had refused to take part in the wicked arrest of one of their friends.

 

Now as I considered these matters, as well as the sort of men who were active in politics, and the laws and customs, the more I examined them and the more I advanced in years, the harder it appeared to me to administer the government correctly... Furthermore the written law and the customs were being corrupted at an astonishing rate. The result was that I, who had been at first full of eagerness for a public career, as I gazed upon the whirlpool of public life and saw the incessant movement of shifting currents, at last felt dizzy, and while I did not cease to consider means of improving this particular situation and indeed of reforming the whole constitution, yet in regard to action, I kept waiting for favourable moments, and finally saw clearly in regard to all states now existing, that without exception, their system of government is bad.[29]