Plato is a friend but a greater truth. Plato is my friend - but the truth is dearer
In ontology, Plato is an idealist; for the first time in the history of European philosophy, his views acquired the form of a consistent idealistic system, and he is considered the founder of idealism.
In 11-12 Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle
B11 Plato (427-347 BC)
Plato was Socrates' student. Plato (427-347 BC), whose real name was Aristocles , was the founder of the first Academy, i.e. philosophical school created in the grove of the hero Academus in 348 BC. At this school they studied 4 main disciplines: 1) dialectics; 2) mathematics; 3) astronomy; 4) music.
Plato divided all reality into two worlds: the world of ideas and the material world.
The material world is only a shadow of the world of ideas: it is secondary. All phenomena and objects material world are transitory. They arise, change and perish, and therefore cannot be truly existing. Ideas are eternal and unchanging. He explains his theory using the image of a “cave”: all people are, as it were, in a cave, they are chained and stand with their backs to the exit, and therefore they see what is happening outside the cave only by the reflections that appear on the walls of the cave. According to Plato, idea precedes matter in the sense that before creating any thing, a person creates in his head an ideal project for this thing . Plato explained the similarity of all tables existing in the world by the presence of the idea of a table. Idea, or eidos (type, form), there is a true, supersensible existence, comprehended by the mind, “the feeder of the soul.” The place of residence of the idea is “supracelestial places.” The highest idea is the idea of good. Happiness consists in the possession of good. Love is the desire for integrity, harmony, reunification with your “half”.
The world of ideas is the masculine, active principle. The world of matter is the passive, feminine principle. The sensory world is the brainchild of both. At the core theories of knowledge, according to Plato, lies memory ( anamnesis). The soul remembers the ideas it encountered in the world of ideas before it united with the body. These memories are stronger and more intense the more a person manages to free himself from physicality. The body is a prison for the soul. The body is mortal, of course, but the soul is eternal. Consequently, a person must strive for the eternal and think about improving the soul.
Paying attention to man, Plato says that the soul is like an idea - one and indivisible, however, it is possible to isolate 3 parts of the soul and three beginnings:
1) mind; a) reasonable;
2) will and noble desires; b) furious;
3) sensuality and attractions; c) lustful.
If in a person's soul reasonableness prevails part of it is that a person strives for the highest good, for justice and truth; these are philosophers.
If more developed furious the beginning of the soul, then a person is characterized by courage, courage, the ability to subordinate lust to duty; these are warriors , and there are many more of them than philosophers.
If "lower" prevails", lustful part of the soul, then a person should engage physical labor . Depending on which part of the soul predominates, a person is oriented towards the base and bad, or towards the sublime and noble.
From his ideas about man, Plato derived ideal state formula (person - society).
According to Plato, the motivating reason for the emergence states is the diversity of human needs and the impossibility of satisfying them alone. State and human soul have the same structure. Plato identifies in In an ideal state there are three estates: 1) rulers-philosophers; 2) wars (guards);
3) farmers and artisans.
In Plato's ideal state there are no slaves, and for the two upper classes there is no property and family. Each class has its own virtue: 1) wisdom; 2) courage; 3) restraint.
The fourth virtue is justice. is the fulfillment by each class of a function corresponding to it in the state. Plato highlights 4 negative types of state , in which the main driver of people’s behavior is material concerns and incentives:
1) timocracy; 2) oligarchy; 3) democracy; 4) tyranny.
Timocracy- this is the power of ambitious people who are driven by a passion for enrichment and the desire for acquisition. The consequence of timocracy is the division of society into a minority of rich and a majority of poor, as well as the establishment oligarchies. Oligarchy is the power of the rich few over the poor. Anger and envy reign here, contradictions are intensifying, and, as a result, the victory of the poor and the establishment of democracy, i.e. the power of the majority (democracy). But both in nature and in society, everything that is done too much is rewarded with a great change in the opposite direction: tyranny comes precisely from democracy, like the cruelest slavery - from the highest freedom. Tyranny is a form of state power based on individual rule, which is often established by force and is based on despotism.
Plato's influence was enormous in the Middle Ages. In him alone they saw God the creator.
B12 Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Plato's student was Aristotle (384-322 BC). Aristotle - Stagirite, because born in the city of Stagira, in 334 BC. founded the first lyceum, or Lyceum, a peripatetic philosophical school. He wrote more than 150 treatises. Philosophy is the doctrine of the universal, knowledge of the general. Wisdom is knowledge of the causes of all phenomena. Philosophy is divided into 3 parts:
1) theoretical: metaphysics, physics, mathematics.
2) practical: politics, ethics, rhetoric.
3) fine: poetics, rhetoric.
Aristotle declared: “Plato is my friend, but truth is dearer” and criticized Plato’s theory of ideas. Firstly, he argued that ideas are not in any other world, And Secondly that they are in the things themselves: “Concrete things are a combination of matter and form” . This doctrine was called - hylemorphism. Form forms from the first matter an actual real being . First matter is the basis of being, a potential prerequisite for the existing.Four elements - fire, air, water, earth- this is an intermediate step between the first matter, which is sensually incomprehensible, and really existing world, which we perceive sensually (it is studied by physics ). Sensible things have two pairs of opposite properties: heat and cold, wet and dry. . The four main compounds of these properties form the four main elements:
· Fire is warm and dry.
· Earth is cold and dry.
· Air is warm and humid.
Water is cold and wet
These four elements are the basis of real things. When studying concrete things, Aristotle speaks of primary and secondary essences (first and second). The first essence is individual being, a concrete thing as such. The second essence is generic or specific, reflecting the general, expressed in a definition, it is derivative.
Distinguish 4 reasons for everything that exists:
1) material cause (passive principle);
2) formal reason (active principle);
3) active cause associated with the source of movement;
4) the final, or target cause, explains the purpose and meaning of the movement as the realization of the goal.
The source of movement (prime mover) is the form of forms (God).
Aristotle distinguished 3 levels of the soul:
1) vegetative, plant, is the ability to live, reproduce, etc. (soul of plants),
2) sensual, predominant in the souls of animals,
3) the rational, inherent in man, is that part of the soul that thinks and knows.
The soul is the dominant principle, and the body is the subordinate. The soul is a form of realization of the natural whole (1st entelechy, form of realization of the natural body). Entelechy is the “realization of a goal.”
Knowledge begins with wonder. The first level of cognition is sensory cognition (cognition of specific things, singularities). The second level of knowledge is rational (knowledge of the general). The pinnacle of knowledge is art and science.
Movement does not exist apart from things, it is eternal. Movement is a change in essence, quality, quantity and place. There are 6 types of movement:
· emergence;
· death;
· decrease;
· increase;
· turn;
· change of location.
Finally, I got to the play “Fatima” on the stage of the Ossetian Theater
Part one. Plato is my friend
I admit right away that I am quite familiar with Tamerlan Sabanov and I admire him sincerely and selflessly. He is magnificent: talented, positive, loves his students and puts literally everything he has into them, and even this seems not enough for him. He always smiles, and this is not an American smile on duty, but a sincere spiritual acceptance of life, love for it, understanding of how much beauty and amazingness there is around. He has a unique sense of humor and easily, “on a click,” joins the game with his interlocutor, picking up his mood. Sometimes I witness how he, Tamerlan, Givi Valiev And Alexander Bitarov in the dean’s office of the Faculty of Arts, they spontaneously organize a booth, more fun and brighter than which I have never seen anything: all the world stages that stage the best comedies in the world are resting, because this is a momentary, stunning and honest “theater”. So beautiful that it never occurred to any of the witnesses to record it on camera: everyone is involved to the point of unconsciousness.
And Tamerlane is also humane. Not because it’s right, but because that’s how he really is.
Part two. But the truth is more precious
Finally, I got to what was already called a big event, the play “Fatima” on the stage of the Ossetian Theater. I saw the event, but not the performance. It is simply criminal to be unfounded in such a situation, so I will try to explain my position. But first, I will repeat a hundred times that the perception of a work of art is subjective, so in no case do I want to offend those who liked it.
Imagine that archaeologists, without making much effort, discovered fragments of a magnificent vase almost on the surface. The fact that it was magnificent could only be guessed because there were a minimal number of fragments, but they had an image on them that seemed familiar to everyone, but could not be fully read. Historians wanted to make a reconstruction, restore missing details, but this was impossible. And those pieces that nevertheless survived and survived to our times were amazing in their potential: the lines were drawn by a very talented person, this could not be disputed. A “memories of a masterpiece” style find. This is how I felt at the performance, because Kosta Khetagurov was not on stage. He was, of course, present in the theater, but in the minds of the audience who loved him, in some hints of him from the actors, but nothing else. If the performance was watched by a person who knows nothing about Khetagurov, he would be surprised that the Ossetian people consider him their spiritual leader, a serious and profound writer and the inspirer of all subsequent Ossetian culture.
This is the main complaint. All the others are much smaller compared to this one.
One of the main advantages of Khetagurov’s poem, written in Russian, is its lack of agreement. And the story of Fatima on the stage of the Ossetian Theater is deprived of this component. The vase I mentioned was completed without taking into account what was “offered” by its creator many decades ago, according to not entirely clear criteria that were clearly not provided for by Costa himself. What for?
Most of the complaints are addressed to the author of the text Totraz Kokaev. There are still almost holy things that should not be touched, because they are valuable for any speaker of the Ossetian language. There are historical and ethnographic facts mentioned by Khetagurov that should have been left as they are presented in the poem.
Why the Russian-Turkish war? Why was the faith of the heroes of Khetagur’s “Fatima” not preserved (they were Muslims)? Why, finally, does Fatima, a bright bearer of the national mentality, and even brought up in a princely house, come to Ibrahim’s wretched home? In the film that we all love and know, there is an apologetic conversation between Fatima and Ibrahim in the forest in which she realizes that she can do this and, apparently, it is during this episode that she makes a decision. Costa himself deliberately kept silent about this episode in the poem. Due to its delicacy, probably. But the authors of the play lacked Khetagurov’s delicacy.
The way the funeral was presented didn’t seem right to me either. I was not convinced by the conversation of the wise Naib with his daughter, when he, already dead, that is, seeing everything and having the opportunity to know even about human thoughts, located in another dimension, although during his lifetime, which I am sure, he understood everything about his children, tries convince her to treat her brother with sympathy.
The noble silence that is in the poem has been removed from the text, so the characters of the play do not look so powerful and mysterious, not so romantic and sublime. Not this way!
I don’t want to waste time with my “why”. And the questions mentioned are enough to make one feel offended for the distortion of the author’s intention.
I caught myself thinking that I didn’t want to move on to directing, because I didn’t even know what exactly to say about it. The performance is energetically very sluggish, but could have been Shakespearean tragic, that is, tragic globally, to death and to pieces. So that a lump comes to the throat, so that it chills to the bones, so that everyone leaves in tears.
What got in the way? I don’t undertake to answer this question precisely, but I assume that interruptions in the rhythm interfered. It seems that the writer and director wanted to include a "swing" where very scary moments alternate with funny, dancing and other entertaining and distracting scenes. This could be done at the beginning of the performance, but at the end, when the tension builds, it cannot be constantly “knocked down”. As soon as you get involved in the experience, the girls are having fun at the spring, as soon as you begin to sympathize with the tragedy, the shepherds are having fun... In the end, the vector of the audience’s tension needs to be directed only upward, and then come up with a cathartic moment that would “put everyone in the audience on their shoulder blades.” A woman in red with a child in her arms, which she holds out to the viewer as some kind of proof of something that is not entirely clear, is so obvious that you begin to doubt your ability to understand symbols. Is it really possible to be so rude?
The style is not consistent. If we are talking about monumentality, characteristic of the Ossetian theater, then why a shepherd dressed as a girl? And monumentality presupposes a very high degree of conventionality, but here there are a lot of realistic moments and details. And if we are talking about realism, then why is there so much static in the acting? There are a lot of scenes in which the participants simply stand (or sit) and deliver monologues. The performance clearly lacks movement, air, mobility, dynamics. Realism, according to Stanislavsky, is the presence of a fourth wall, that is, a game at such a level when the audience does not seem to exist, but the actors involved in Fatima are constantly focused specifically on the audience, to the point of unnatural moments: lovers must look at each other , not on the audience; a father and daughter who trust each other could also somehow make eye contact when having a difficult conversation...
I feel sorry for the actors. It was very difficult for them. They, poor fellows, banged their heads against the rocks of script and director's mistakes. But there are still good moments. Of course have.
The static, which was the basis of the performance by the director, was aggravated for the male characters by the presence of a headdress that practically hides facial expressions. And here, logically, plastics should come into play. The body can show absolutely all experiences. It would be extremely interesting. I was shocked by Alexander Bitarov's passage down the stairs at the end when he did what he did. His bent back, such an uncertain step, now devoid of princely dignity, his expressively drooping shoulders, his bowed head, which is not used to being in such a state... It’s just brilliance. But for this performance, this remained only the acting potential demonstrated by Bitarov: we did not see the actor’s capabilities in all its glory.
U Exiled Tsallaeva(Ibrahim)’s plasticity is worse, but the static scenes didn’t give him a chance to show everything he’s capable of.
Fatima ( Zalina Galaova) is stunning in a number of ways. Zalina can do everything! But for some reason she has to talk in a raised voice to Dzhambulat right next to the child sleeping in the cradle (it’s unrealistic for a mother to behave like that)... This is a small thing, but the character of the heroine cannot be maintained, she breaks down. After all, she is proud of her motherhood and it insults her that Dzhambulat treats her son with contempt. And suddenly he screams in the ear of this very son, not afraid to wake him up...
Khetagurov (I specifically re-read it) does not have a clear indication of whether Fatima was able to fall in love with Ibrahim or whether she respects him as her husband, appreciates him, understands, as Tatyana Larina does in Pushkin: “I was given to another.” But the tragedy would have been brighter, in my opinion, if we had seen Fatima, who loves Dzhambolat. This would raise the temperature! Although in the proposed interpretation, when Dzhambolat is practically hated by her, there are deviations from the character line that the director was obliged to eliminate.
Madness played perfectly! I can’t even imagine how difficult it is, but we have a heroine in the theater. You can’t do without “bravo” here.
I was not convinced by the images of Death (make-up is an undoubted success) and Love. They, as correctly indicated Eduard Daurov in the article “Unconditional Convention” (“North Ossetia”, May 4) are too straightforward and predictable. Death is still somehow appropriate, but Love generally looks somehow incomprehensible. By the way, I did not repeat what Eduard Daurov mentioned, because I cannot but agree with most of his observations. In addition to reproaches towards the scenery. It just seemed to me that everything was fine with this (play designer - Emma Vergeles), I was especially impressed by the curtain in the style that is now called “boho”. Wonderful. Although the question of unjustified differences in style is also present in the decorations.
The absolute highlight of the performance is the songs and dances. It worked out, thank God, one hundred percent. Even two hundred and three hundred.
And here's another thing. Ruslan Mildzikhov, the Minister of Culture, as reported in the press, said that it was necessary to build a “subtler” line of relationships between the heroes. I don't understand what exactly he meant. In my opinion, you can do it any way you want: thinly, broadly, in oils, in watercolors, even in graphics, but you just need to stick to your chosen style to the end and convey to the viewer the reasons for your choice. For example, make the performance really black and white, like old photographs...
But something else scared me. The performance "Fatima" gave rise to the minister's desire to revive artistic councils. And somehow, you know, it’s very similar to censorship. Who are the judges? Who will determine what is necessary and how it is possible? Who are these respected people? I will repeat what I said at the very beginning: art is a “voluntary” matter. I heard a lot of good reviews about Fatima, even enthusiastic ones. I cannot separate them, but I am absolutely and completely glad that this event took place. The one who does nothing makes no mistakes. And if there had been the aforementioned artistic council, it is not yet entirely clear whether they would have missed the performance or not.
By the way, there is an ideal system of such advice that existed in Ancient Greece. There was a special school where attentive teachers selected the best and most talented. And if a school received an order to make a statue, for example, then 5-7 graduates were entrusted with completing the model. They worked separately from each other, and then presented their work to EACH OTHER! A vote was taken in which only two names could be named. The first, natural, is his own (What artist would refuse to consider his own brainchild the best of the best!), and the second is someone else’s. The one who collects more votes is the winner. Moreover, all other models that did not win were immediately destroyed completely into dust, because the Greeks were sure: in art only the very best has the right to immortality. This is what I understand. But everything else is not.
B I hope everyone is tired of this saying, but in it, as in everything Greek, lies a sea of nuances that are important not so much for the Greeks, they are knee-deep in the Aegean Sea, but for you and me.
Judge for yourself. "Plato is my friend but the truth is dearer". This means “more dear to me.” Those. there are clearly three present here: (1) Plato, who is called a friend, (2) truth, and (3) Socrates (let's say Socrates, who is behind this phrase).
Plato expressed something that we call Platonic truth, and Socrates, who most likely has his own truth, different from Plato’s, does not agree with it. He will express it now - whether Plato likes it or not.
Socrates has friendly feelings towards Plato, which he declares openly, and this is expressed in the fact that he would not want to offend him. But it can’t help but offend! Because Socrates’ own truth is more valuable than Plato’s well-being.
We dare to guess that Plato may be somewhat upset (that is, Socrates thinks that he will be upset, as he would have done in his place) when he sees that his truth is rejected by Socrates. Those. Plato will not so much like Socrates' truth as he worries about his own.
And Socrates, knowing about his younger friend’s touchiness, hastens to apologize to him. They say, don’t be offended, but I’ll refute you now. And he refutes - as they say, regardless of the persons, in this case Plato.
Judging by his tone, Socrates expressed a universal truth. This means that it is recursively true in relation to itself (because it contains the term “truth”). It turns out that when speaking about the truth that is dear to himself, he means exactly this: “Plato is my friend, but the truth, etc.”
Truth is more important than the warmest friendship - Socrates said this. And even more so, more important than any other person. And this is my truth! At least I share it, even if it was stated by someone else, say (mythical) Athenagoras of Edessa. So, if I share the opinion of Athenagoras, then it belongs to me too! And to you, Plato, I declare my truth only so that you also make it yours, abandoning false delusions. Those. I'm telling you for your own benefit. But even if you don’t agree, I will still express it to you, shout it, recite it. Because the truth is more important than anything else.
We see that the Greeks, “according to Socrates” in the above expression, live not in the world of people, but in the world of truth. (This maxim is the truth of Socrates.) Moreover, it - in any of its forms - is completely concrete, and not conditional, not supramaterial, i.e. not one of those that are cognizable only mystically, through the construction of ideal structures (this is Plato’s idea about the world of the ideal).
The completely material and grounded Socrates prefers specificity to the ideal Plato. In other words, the world “according to Plato,” where the priority of people over ideas reigns, is ideal, unreal, and platonic. Socrates does not agree with such a world; he denies it the right to exist.
I don’t know who Plato really was (in our context), but Socrates, based on the above expression, endowed him with a completely recognizable point of view. Plato (according to this expression) could say: truth is dear to me, but you, Socrates, are much dearer, and I cannot offend you with my truth.
(A small note. Socrates is talking about truth in general. He does not say: my truth is dearer to me than Plato with his truth. Thus, Socrates brings into his truth - and it is still only his! - himself. Socrates seems to be saying: I , Socrates, is more important than you, Plato. - But let’s not focus on this, so as not to completely quarrel our friends.)
So, Plato is afraid of offending Socrates. Socrates is not afraid to offend Plato. Plato sees a friend in Socrates, and this is not an empty phrase for him. Socrates also considers Plato his friend, but is ready to neglect his own towards him friendly attitude, for he, Socrates, is even closer friends with the truth. Socrates has a gradation of friendship, a degree of preference: Plato stands at a lower level than truth. (It is not for nothing that he uses the term “more expensive” in connection with truth.) Plato does not have such a ladder: he treats Socrates with no less love than he treats his truth. He doesn't want to offend him. And even more precisely, he would rather offend the truth than a friend.
To offend the truth means to be ready, under certain circumstances, to abandon it, to agree that a friend’s opinion is no less significant, and perhaps superior to mine, it can be assumed to be more true, correct, even if I do not share it.
And if this is the total rule that Plato adheres to, then his the only truth- never offend friends. Even at the expense of my Platonic truth. And you can offend them only by rejecting the truth to which they reverently cling. Therefore, we will not reject, criticize, or show the inconsistency of someone else’s opinion.
And since we are talking about philosophers, then, most likely, for them a friend is everyone who has his own truth, or at least some truth. For Socrates, living in what seems to him to be a real world, his own truth has the greatest value. While for the idealist Plato, no one's truth is valuable enough to hurt a person for the sake of it.
Practice shows that most people - Socrates - live in a world of truths. Platos live in the world of people. For Socrates, ideas and truths are important, for Platos - the environment.
I don’t want to say that this intellectual and ethical confrontation determines the main course of world history. But practice shows that the balance of power over the centuries has shifted towards the world of people, pushing the world of truth aside. Those. the truth that was recognized yesterday more important than a person, goes into the shadows, becomes a lie.
But why did this shift take so long? Because the Platos cannot impose their obvious truth on the Socrates. Because people are more important to them than the imposed Platonic truth. Let them come to her themselves.
“Following me, think less about Socrates and more about the truth.” These words are allegedly spoken by Socrates in Plato's Phaedrus. That is, Plato puts into the mouth of his teacher the advice to his students to choose the truth rather than faith in the authority of the teacher. But the phrase has spread all over the world precisely in the version given above: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer.” In this form, it no longer calls for independence of judgment from authorities, but for the dictate of truth over norms of behavior. Truth is more important than ethics.
The authorship of the statement “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer” (Amitus Plato, sed magis amica veritas) is attributed to Socrates, who said: “Following me, think less about Socrates and more about the truth.” This was reported by ancient Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 BC) in the work “Phaedo”. “Phaedo” is one of Plato’s dialogues, in which Socrates’ student Phaedo conducts a conversation with the Pythagorean philosopher Echecrates. In it, Phaedo talks about the last hours of Socrates’ life, about his conversation with friends before his execution.“Plato is my friend, but truth is more precious” means that truth, truth is always more important than all other circumstances of life.
The phraseological unit Amitus Plato, sed magis amica veritas is cited by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the work “Picomachoan Ethics”. In his presentation, the statement sounds like this: “Even though friends and truth are dear to me, but duty commands me to give preference to the truth.” Aristotle's biographer Ammonius Saccas in his book “The Life of Aristotle” conveyed this expression in a more condensed form: “Socrates is dear to me, but truth is dearer.” The medieval theologian, initiator of the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546) retold the phrase in this form: “Plato is my friend, Socrates is my friend, but truth should be preferred”
Use of phraseological units in literature
- “One evening, when the sovereign was in a gloomy mood, he deigned to smile when he learned of the existence of the second maiden Le Fontaine, and arranged her marriage with a young judge, rich and capable, although of bourgeois origin, and granted him the title of baron. But when a year later the Vendean mentioned his third daughter, the girl Emilia de Fontaine, the king answered him in a thin, caustic voice: “Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Natio” (“Plato is a friend, but the nation is more valuable”) (Honore de Balzac "Country Ball")
- “Here I have encountered one circumstance, because of which I will probably fall out of favor with their lordship, and this is unpleasant for me, but nothing can be done, because in the end I have to take into account not so much their pleasure or displeasure , how many with their own calling, according to the famous saying: amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas" (M. Cervantes "Don Quixote")
- “And should we talk about the defenders of their literature and their “authors”, who seem to be personally offended by the reviews of Otechestvennye Zapiski about Marlinsky? Try to explain to them that even if the magazine were wrong in its opinion about this writer, then it still retains the right to a free and original view of all kinds of writers... and that amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas" (V. Belinsky)
- “If it is considered ignoble to flatter the living, then how can we call flattery to the dead? To those who may think that it is indecent for me, who was once a friend of Granovsky, to judge him with more severity than others, I will answer the ancient, but eternal: “amicus Plato, sed magis arnica Veritas” (A. Herzen)
- “Recently there was a fire in our city; the idle buildings at the house of the bourgeois Zalupayeva burned down, and who do you think was the last to come to the fire? I am ashamed of my city, but out of respect for the truth (amicus Plato, sed magis arnica Veritas) I must publicly announce that our fire brigade was the last to arrive, and, moreover, arrived at a time when the fire was finally extinguished by the efforts of private individuals.” (M. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Satires in prose”)
- “Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas” - epigraph to the book “Journey into the Inland” by writer Marko Vovchek(pseudonym of Maria Alexandrovna Vilinskaya)
“... Sorry - I’m ashamed to say this about a person who showed me true friendship, but amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas - you definitely look like a pig who would prove to a person that it’s in vain that he eats oranges, that acorns are much better she likes" (N. Chernyshevsky)
- “Plekhanov delved into all the details, asked and asked, as if wanting to test himself, but most of all it had the character of an examination of an old comrade to an old comrade: whether this comrade stood up to the task, what he professes, and what tactics he adheres to. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas (friend Plato, but truth is higher than friendship), said his cold eyes.” (O. Aptekman “Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov. From personal memories")
Plato
A) About ideas
Idea is a central category in Plato's philosophy. The idea of a thing is something ideal. So, for example, we drink water, but we cannot drink the idea of water or eat the idea of bread, paying in stores with the ideas of money: an idea is the meaning, the essence of a thing. Plato's ideas summarize all cosmic life: they have regulatory energy and govern the Universe. They are characterized by regulatory and formative power; they are eternal patterns, paradigms (from the Greek paradigma - sample), according to which the whole multitude of real things is organized from formless and fluid matter. Plato interpreted ideas as certain divine essences. They were thought of as target causes, charged with the energy of aspiration, and there were relations of coordination and subordination between them. The highest idea is the idea of absolute good - it is a kind of “Sun in the kingdom of ideas”, the world’s Reason, it deserves the name of Reason and Divinity. But this is not yet a personal divine Spirit (as later in Christianity). Plato proves the existence of God by the feeling of our affinity with his nature, which, as it were, “vibrates” in our souls. An essential component of Plato's worldview is belief in gods. Plato considered it the most important condition for the stability of the social world order. According to Plato, the spread of “ungodly views” has a detrimental effect on citizens, especially young people, is a source of unrest and arbitrariness, and leads to the violation of legal and moral norms, i.e. to the principle “everything is permitted”, in the words of F.M. Dostoevsky. Plato called for severe punishment of the “wicked.”
B) ideal state
The “ideal state” is a community of farmers, artisans who produce everything necessary to support the lives of citizens, warriors who protect security, and philosopher-rulers who exercise wise and fair governance of the state. Plato contrasted such an “ideal state” with ancient democracy, which allowed the people to participate in political life and to govern. According to Plato, only aristocrats are called upon to rule the state as the best and wisest citizens. But farmers and artisans, according to Plato, must do their work conscientiously, and they have no place in government bodies. The state must be protected by law enforcement officers, who form the power structure, and the guards should not have personal property, must live in isolation from other citizens, and eat at a common table. The “ideal state,” according to Plato, must protect religion in every possible way, cultivate piety in citizens, and fight against all kinds of wicked people. The entire system of upbringing and education should pursue these same goals.
Without going into details, it should be said that Plato’s doctrine of the state is a utopia. Let us just imagine the classification of forms of government proposed by Plato: it highlights the essence of the socio-philosophical views of the brilliant thinker.
Plato highlighted:
a) “ideal state” (or approaching the ideal) - aristocracy, including an aristocratic republic and an aristocratic monarchy;
b) a descending hierarchy of government forms, which included timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.
According to Plato, tyranny is the worst form of government, and democracy was the object of his sharp criticism. The worst forms of the state are the result of the “damage” of the ideal state. Timocracy (also the worst) is a state of honor and qualifications: it is closer to the ideal, but worse, for example, than an aristocratic monarchy.
B) immortal soul
Interpreting the idea of the soul, Plato says: the soul of a person before his birth resides in the realm of pure thought and beauty. Then she finds herself on the sinful earth, where, temporarily being in a human body, like a prisoner in a dungeon, she “remembers the world of ideas.” Here Plato meant memories of what happened in a previous life: the soul resolves the main issues of its life even before birth; Having been born, she already knows everything there is to know. She chooses her lot herself: it is as if she is already destined for her own fate, destiny. Thus, the Soul, according to Plato, is an immortal essence; three parts are distinguished in it: rational, turned to ideas; ardent, affective-volitional; sensual, driven by passions, or lustful. The rational part of the soul is the basis of virtue and wisdom, the ardent part of courage; overcoming sensuality is the virtue of prudence. As for the Cosmos as a whole, the source of harmony is the world mind, a force capable of adequately thinking about itself, being at the same time an active principle, the feeder of the soul, governing the body, which in itself is deprived of the ability to move. In the process of thinking, the soul is active, internally contradictory, dialogical and reflexive. “When thinking, it does nothing more than reason, questioning itself, affirming and denying” (3). The harmonious combination of all parts of the soul under the regulative principle of reason provides a guarantee of justice as an integral property of wisdom.
Aristotle
Plato is my friend - but the truth is dearer
The students, speaking about their teachers, stated in this way that although they respect and value them, they note that with all the respect and authority of a person, any of his statements can always be questioned and criticized if it does not correspond to the truth. Thus, ancient philosophers pointed to the supremacy of truth.
A) doctrine of matter
Matter and form (eidos). Potency and act. Based on the recognition of the objective existence of matter, Aristotle considered it eternal, uncreated and indestructible. Matter cannot arise from nothing, nor can it increase or decrease in quantity. However, matter itself, according to Aristotle, is inert and passive. It contains only the possibility of the emergence of a real variety of things, just as, say, marble contains the possibility of different statues. In order to turn this possibility into reality, it is necessary to give matter the appropriate form. By form Aristotle understood the active creative factor through which a thing becomes real. Form is the stimulus and goal, the reason for the formation of diverse things from monotonous matter: matter is a kind of clay. In order for various things to arise from it, a potter is needed - God (or the mind-prime mover). Form and matter are inextricably linked, so that every thing is potentially already contained in matter and receives its form through natural development. The whole world is a series of forms connected with each other and arranged in an order of increasing perfection. Thus, Aristotle approaches the idea of the individual existence of a thing, a phenomenon: they represent the fusion of matter and eidos (form). Matter acts as a possibility and as a kind of substratum of existence. Marble, for example, can be considered as the possibility of a statue; it is also a material principle, a substrate, and a statue carved from it is already a unity of matter and form. The main mover of the world is God, defined as the form of all forms, as the pinnacle of the universe.
B) theory of the soul
Descending in his philosophical reflections from the abyss of the Cosmos to the world of animate beings, Aristotle believed that the soul, possessing a sense of purpose, is nothing more than its organizing principle, inseparable from the body, the source and method of regulation of the organism, its objectively observable behavior. The soul is the entelechy(1) of the body. Therefore, those who believe that the soul cannot exist without a body are right, but it itself is immaterial, incorporeal. That by which we live, feel and think is the soul, so it is a certain meaning and form, and not matter, not a substrate: “It is the soul that gives meaning and purpose to life.” The body is characterized by a vital state that creates its orderliness and harmony. This is the soul, i.e. reflection of the actual reality of the universal and eternal Mind. Aristotle gave an analysis of the various “parts” of the soul: memory, emotions, the transition from sensations to general perception, and from it to a generalized idea; from opinion through concept - to knowledge, and from directly felt desire - to rational will. The soul discerns and cognizes existing things, but it “spends a lot of time” in mistakes.” “To achieve something reliable about the soul in all respects is certainly the most difficult thing” (2). According to Aristotle, the death of the body frees the soul for its eternal life: the soul is eternal and immortal.
Related information.