Plato was born in 428/427 BC in Athens. He belonged to an ancient aristocratic family, dating back to the first Athenian king Codrus and the great reformer of the 6th century BC Solon. In his youth, Plato devoted himself to poetry and wrote tragedies. His literary talent is evident on many pages of his works that have come down to us. However, Plato, with his aristocratic background, felt himself primarily destined for political activity. Like many young Athenians of that time, he sought a solution to the question of a just and correct structure of the state and the arrangement of the lives of citizens. In search of an answer, he came across the strange figure of Socrates, who became his mentor in life and teacher in philosophy. The unjust sentence, conviction and execution of the Athenian sage finally turned Plato away from a political career. Plato ceased to believe in the possibility of achieving justice in the Greek states of that time. After Socrates’ death, he had to leave Athens for a while; ancient tradition tells of his numerous travels, but these reports are not always reliable. In the mid-90s of the 4th century, Plato, returning to Athens, organized his own philosophical school, which was called the Academy, since it was located in the place where the hero Academ was worshiped.
The Academy was an association of people who dedicated themselves to philosophical and scientific activities. They studied the problems of logic and rhetoric. The Academy was the largest mathematical center of that time, since in Plato’s understanding of philosophy, mathematics is a necessary condition for philosophical knowledge. Hence the famous motto of Plato’s Academy: “Let no non-geometer enter.” However, the Academy was not only a scientific and philosophical center, but also a forge of political personnel for various Greek city-states. According to Plato, the students of the Academy were to introduce Platonic ideals of social life into the legislation and practice of Greece at that time. Plato himself tried to implement his plan during his three trips to Sicily in Syracuse: the first time he went to the tyrant Dionysius the Elder (around 387 BC), the other two – to his son Dionysius the Younger (after 367 BC). These attempts by Plato failed, but until the end of his life in 347, Plato continued to think about a just social order, which was possible only if philosophers were at the head of states.
Problems of interpretation. Plato is one of the most grandiose figures in the history of philosophy and human culture in general. It is hardly possible to find a thinker who can compare with him in the degree of influence on all subsequent philosophical, political and religious thought, a thinker who even today becomes the subject of heated discussions concerning the most pressing issues of public life. Plato’s influence affected the most significant philosophers and scientists of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the New Age. Plato was known not only in the West, but also in Byzantium, which preserved for us the corpus of his works, and in the Arab East. Nevertheless, despite this influence, Plato was and remains a great unknown in the history of the human spirit. Despite more than two thousand years of study, research and interpretation of Plato, there is still no single view of his work, and the proposed interpretations are sometimes diametrically opposed. Mystic Plato or rationalist, creator of myths or the first European logician, ideologist of the reactionary aristocracy or the first communist – there are many answers to these questions, and they are different. Indeed, this great philosopher and one of the best European artists of the word is so profound and multifaceted that a single view of his work will probably never appear. What makes Plato’s work so mysterious? At first glance, it seems that it is possible to single out a certain set of doctrines in Plato’s works, which will represent Plato’s teaching. For example, the teaching about eternal and unchanging ideas, about the ever-changing world of sensory things, dependent in its existence on these ideas, about the immortal soul cognizing these ideas, about the unreliability of sensory knowledge, about the ideal state, about the creation of the cosmos.
However, if we look at these teachings more closely, we will discover that it is impossible to find a completely definite, dogmatic statement of them in Plato’s works, that the picture is always complicated by a multitude of different digressions, discussions, considerations and revisions, that we are almost always dealing with a study, not with an exposition, that the philosophical situation often changes from one work to another. In a number of works, these, by common consent, central moments of Plato’s teaching are absent, in others, for example in “Parmenides”, the theory of eternal and unchanging ideas is criticized and replaced by the most complex reasoning about the nature of the one and the origin of the multitude from it, in others (“Sophist”) movement is allowed into the motionless world of ideas, and the ideas of justice, beauty, chastity, familiar in other dialogues, are replaced by “higher kinds of being”. The soul can be depicted as a simple indivisible thing (Phaedo), or as a whole consisting of three parts (Phaedrus, Republic, Timaeus). Many of Plato’s works end with an aporia, no answer is given to the question posed, and these questions are of primary importance. Thus, Theaetetus, devoted to the analysis of knowledge, does not provide a final solution to this problem.
Thus, it is difficult to find a systematic philosophy as a single sequence of non-contradictory propositions in Plato’s dialogues. This leads to various strategies for interpreting Plato’s texts. First, it can be considered that Plato changed his views on the fundamental points of his teaching during his life (evolutionary-genetic approach). In this case, the study of Plato is focused on clarifying the intellectual biography of the great Athenian. Second, it can be assumed that there is not and cannot be any Platonic system that exists outside of individual dialogues. Then we must abandon attempts to talk about Plato’s philosophy and limit ourselves to clarifying the philosophy of individual dialogues. Third, it can be assumed that the Platonic system should be sought outside of the dialogues, since in the works of Aristotle and representatives of the ancient Academy there are traces of a Platonic system that is not identical to what we can find in the dialogues. Fourthly, we can recognize Plato not as the creator of a strict theory of being, knowledge, state and man, but as an inspired visionary, artist and poet who is not aware of what he is saying and therefore has not developed a strictly coherent system of philosophy. Finally, we can try to find a certain position that will make it possible to see the unity of Plato’s thought in the complex interweaving of various approaches, statements and problems, when apparent contradictions become moments of a complex organic system. But for this we must try not to approach Plato with our own criteria formed by school philosophy, but to comprehend Plato’s thought from it itself.
Trying to understand Plato also means realizing that he chooses dialogue as the means of expressing his thoughts
[1] . This can be explained, of course, by the fact that Plato followed other Socratics (Antisthenes, Aeschines, Euclid, Phaedo), choosing the genre that was most widespread among Socrates’ students, a genre that allowed him to convey the personality traits and teaching of Socrates. However, even if Plato initially simply perceives this genre as a given, he very quickly realizes that it is this genre that allows him to formalize his vision of philosophy in a literary form. The fact is that for Plato, philosophy cannot be contained in the dead body of a book; the true being of philosophy is in the soul, which converses either with itself or with another soul. A living conversation, aimed at a very specific interlocutor, with his unique character and opinions, with his strong or weak mind, only this can be, according to Plato, philosophical. This means that the written word can only reflect, remind of a conversation that has already taken place, it can be understood only by those who either heard this conversation or thought about the subjects of the conversation. These reminders of the conversations that Plato and his comrades had are Platonic dialogues. Not all of Plato’s dialogues are equally dialogic, many of them strive for a monologue (Sophist, Parmenides, Timaeus), others are speeches (Menexenus, Symposium). Very rarely in Plato’s dialogues can one find a confrontation of existential positions, as in the dialogues of Dostoevsky’s novels, positions that do not come to some agreement in the course of the dialogue (Gorgias). Rather, there is a joint search for truth by the leader and the follower, when the former is wiser and more reasonable, and the latter is smart and savvy enough to follow the course of the leader’s reasoning. And Plato carried his preference for dialogue to the end of his life, not understanding how it was possible to convey a living thought and a living conversation, full of digressions, transitions, interweaving of meanings, in the form of a treatise addressed to everyone. The choice of this form made Plato’s philosophy very rich, internally alive, constantly enriching the one who approaches it with love and understanding. And it would be completely wrong to see in the form of dialogue a shortcoming of Plato, complicating its systematic presentation, something external that must be thrown overboard in order to remain with the unambiguous Plato, who is supposedly conveyed to us without distortion by the evidence of Aristotle and the ancient Academy. The great achievement of Platonic studies of the 19th century – Plato, cleansed of the layers of subsequent scholasticism of Platonism – should not be lost by us. And one should never lose sight of the fact that Plato’s philosophy is his conversations, his thoughts, reflected in specific dialogues, but at the same time not forget that, despite all the uniqueness and dissimilarity of the various dialogues, they were all written by one person and speak of a single thought and a single philosophy.
Platonic philosophy is complex and diverse, but it has several semantic centers around which the rich inner life of Platonic thought unfolds. Justice and a just social order, social and individual virtue, the possibility, conditions and properties of true knowledge, the stages of knowledge, the possibility of expressing knowledge, the subject of knowledge, what it must be like for it to take place in its truth, being, its areas, their interrelation, their connection with knowledge – these are the main themes of Platonic philosophy, developed by Plato not in their isolation, but in their event.
Knowledge. It is no exaggeration to say that the problem of knowledge becomes one of the key problems of philosophy in Plato. Although individual epistemological developments are found in the pre-Socratic tradition, they are a rather peripheral area of research. The thought of the pre-Socratics is interested in the cosmos and its laws, next to which man and his knowledge appear as a special case. After the great sophists (Protagoras, Gorgias), such an attitude was already unthinkable; sophistic criticism of the dogmatic teachings of the previous natural philosophy showed the dependence of the world that appears before us on ourselves. Man as the measure of all things takes the place of an original and self-governing cosmos. In addition, the sophists, developing the foundations of grammar, rhetoric, and stylistics, discovered the importance of language for knowledge. Plato did not ignore these discoveries; they largely determined the nature of his philosophy. The brilliant flowering of Greek mathematics during Plato’s time also had a huge influence on Plato’s understanding of knowledge. Plato owes the definition of exact and inexact knowledge, the concept of hypothesis and much more to contemporary mathematics.
The first brick in the foundation of the theory of knowledge, according to Plato, is definition. Before definition we cannot say anything about a thing, for how can we say that a thing is such and such if we do not know what it is at all? The definition must grasp the essence of the thing, what it is in itself without the introduction of something else. If, for example, we define virtue, we must not speak of different virtues, of the virtues of yesterday and today, of the virtues of the Athenians and Spartans, of men and women, we must say what in all these virtues makes us speak of them as something unified. A definition that has grasped the essence of a thing must be equally applicable in all cases; if it is possible to find an example that contradicts the definition, it must be discarded. Therefore, according to Plato, knowledge is, first of all, logical knowledge. No sensation enables us to say what a thing is, since it is connected only with one object perceived here and now, and the knowledge sought by Plato must extend to all objects. And here Plato faces the following difficulty. How is it possible to search for a definition, the procedure that must always be carried out in order to acquire knowledge? If it is not known at all what a thing is, how can we begin to look for it and, in the end, find it? After all, even if we discover something in the course of our research, how will we know whether it is what we are looking for? To answer this difficulty, Plato offers the following solution. Indeed, if we assume that knowledge is exhausted by the sensory experience of our life, we will never be able to give an absolutely true definition, since our sensations are not given essences in themselves. In such a case, it will be impossible to define anything, and without a definition it will be impossible to know anything absolutely. But true and absolute knowledge is possible, this is proved, according to Plato, by the existence of mathematical knowledge, which means that the procedure of definition must be based on something that lies outside of sensory experience. So, we can define something only if we already know the thing being defined, and this knowledge is completely extra-experiential in nature. We begin research and the search for a definition only because we already have knowledge, but knowledge that is unmanifested, not explicit, our definition is the bringing of this knowledge to light, its unfolding and manifestation. Every person has a soul in which there is the fullness of knowledge, but the soul, due to its contact with the body, has forgotten this knowledge, and now it must be remembered.
Thus, knowledge begins with the definition of the essence, and in order to give such a definition, it is necessary to assume that the soul already has knowledge of all essences, which must then be developed. The truth of such an interpretation of knowledge is proven, according to Plato, by the fact that it is always possible, by means of correctly posed questions, to force the interlocutor to give an answer about something that he has never studied. This means that his soul contains true opinions, which can be transformed into true knowledge by questioning. In addition, our sensory experience itself testifies to the fact that true knowledge is extrasensory in nature. Indeed, in our experience we encounter objects that have certain properties, for example, round things. However, when we call some sensually perceived thing round, we are well aware that its roundness is imperfect, that it is always possible to point out defects that prevent it from being completely round. Where, then, do we get the concept of a perfect circle, Plato asks, if from the moment of our birth we have dealt only with defective, incomplete circles? Why do we recognize all things of our experience as imperfectly possessing their qualities? This is because in our soul, prior to any experience, there is knowledge of all essences, all perfect qualities, by which we measure sensually perceived things and see their imperfection. This means that prior to any experience, our soul, being immortal, already possesses true knowledge, i.e., knowledge of essences that precede and determine our entire experience. Thus, the true subject of knowledge is the immortal soul, free from contact with the body and its sensations; the body in Plato’s doctrine of knowledge appears as a hindrance and obstacle to the cognitive activity of the soul, which takes place in the sphere of pure thinking. Thinking and knowledge are inaccessible to the body.
Plato draws the main distinction in the field of epistemology between knowledge (πνστήμη) and opinion (δόξα), the former is directed toward true being, the latter — toward the world of becoming. There is also ignorance (atz.a61a), but it is directed toward non-being. The main difference between opinion and knowledge is that opinion is not associated with the activity of justification, it is unconscious. Opinion may be true, but it cannot prove its truth. Knowledge, on the contrary, can always give an account, give a reason
( λόγον διδόναι), according to which something happens exactly this way and not otherwise. Therefore, Plato refuses to reserve the name of “expert” for such figures as the sophist, rhetorician, poet, politician. They can speak correctly about something, but can never really prove that it is so.
Both the realm of knowledge and the realm of opinion are divided by Plato into two parts. In the realm of opinion there are two kinds: faith (πίστις) and similitude (εικασία), in the realm of knowledge – mathematical reason (διάνοια) and pure thinking or dialectical faculty (διαλεκτική1 δύναμις). Faith is the faculty by which we know things of the world of becoming, things of the senses. Such things cannot be known logically, they cannot be proven, we accept them on faith. By similitude we know the various reflections that are encountered in the sense sphere, reflections in water and in mirrors. This ability to operate with ghosts and similitudes is the lowest faculty in our knowledge. Knowledge begins when we begin to cognize supersensible objects, abstracting from things visible and audible. The first section of supersensible cognition, according to Plato, is mathematical thinking or reason. It cognizes things that are not given to us in sensations, therefore, it can no longer be an opinion. However, Plato considers its cognition to be not entirely pure for two reasons. Firstly, although it thinks of non-sensible things, numbers, points, lines, planes, etc., it uses images and things of the sensory world, various diagrams and drawings, to cognize them. A geometer, reasoning about a triangle in general, nevertheless draws in the sand some single, sensory-perceived triangle, and on its example develops the concept of a true, supersensible triangle. Consequently, mathematical thinking is still not free from sensory material, it is not cognition pure from everything material. Secondly, mathematical thinking operates with hypotheses, accepting them as limits “which you will not go beyond”, i.e. as principles for which there is no justification, therefore, which must be accepted on faith, which also does not correspond to the Platonic ideal of knowledge as a constant process of searching for foundations. Mathematicians, speaking about their axioms, postulates and definitions, stop, according to Plato, too early, without trying to find the appropriate foundations for all this. This means that although mathematical reason is already knowledge, and not an opinion, nevertheless it requires higher knowledge, which will justify it and in which there will be no place for the indicated imperfections. This knowledge is dialectical ability.
Plato introduces the word “dialectic” (διαλεκτική τέχνη) into philosophical terminology, which at first denoted the art of conducting a conversation through questions and answers, and then it began to be used by Plato to describe the process of thinking, since thinking is a conversation of the soul with itself. Thus, the dialectical faculty is completely free from any admixture of the sensory, its movement takes place in the sphere of pure concepts or “eidos”, it does not need any drawings, diagrams, or pictures. It is completely abstract, i.e. abstracted from the objects and processes of the world of becoming. In addition, it uses hypotheses differently from mathematicians, for whom hypotheses are the solid beginnings of knowledge. In accordance with the literal meaning of the Greek word tπόθεσις (support), the dialectician uses them as supporting points from which further movement is possible. This movement goes higher and higher, i.e., increasingly breaking away from particular empirical material and ascending to more and more general principles, from species to genera, until it reaches the ultimate point of ascent, called by Plato the “principleless principle” (ρχή νυπόθετος). This is the highest, the most abstract, the most free from everything else principle, the limit of knowledge and being. When the dialectician reaches it, he can already explain everything else, descending downwards and reaching the very last types of being.
Thus, dialectical knowledge consists, according to Plato, in the movement of thinking in pure concepts. Thinking begins with species and moves from them to the highest genera of being, reaches the unpremised beginning, and from it again descends to species. The beginning of this movement is rooted in the ability to see in the multitude of sensory individuals the unity inherent in them from their species, and to ascend to this unity, then to see the single genus to which all species are involved, and, finally, to see that unity which appears in the multitude of genera. The dialectician is the one who can gather the multitude into unity in his thinking; Plato calls him a “synoptic,” i.e. one who contemplates the many together. But the dialectician must also be able to perform another procedure, the division of unity into multitude. Plato was well aware that possession of abstract knowledge is not everything, knowledge must be concretized, translated from the highest abstractions to that layer of being that will allow one to find a guiding thread in the world of becoming. And this world is in closest contact with concrete species.
It is much easier to come from perceptions to the species “horse” than to the species “odd-toed ungulate”, and easier to the species “odd-toed ungulate” than to the species (in modern language “class”) “mammals”. Therefore, the ability to divide the original general concept, to see logical sets in it is the second most important aspect of dialectical art. Plato’s dialectic is closely connected with the doctrine of hypothesis, developed by Plato with some modifications in “Phaedo”, “Republic” and “Parmenides”. According to Plato, direct contemplation cannot lead to knowledge, therefore it is necessary, as he puts it, “to run into reasoning”, i.e. to investigate the truth about the world logically. The first step is the assumption of the most reliable basis at the moment. The second step is to bring all our sensations and reasoning into line with this basis. What agrees with it should be considered true, what does not agree – false. If we are to justify the justification itself, we must proceed from the initial basis to a more general or higher one, from which we must proceed to the next, until we find something that is sufficient in itself and does not require the further procedure of a hypothetical basis. In the Parmenides the hypothetical method is depicted somewhat differently. In supposing a concept, we must examine it not only in itself, but also in its relation to something else, and we must presuppose not only its being, but also its non-being. Moreover, here we must examine something else in exactly the same way.
Plato presented his entire hierarchy of knowledge in the famous image of the cave at the beginning of the seventh book of the Republic. Initially, a person who is alien to science and philosophy is like a prisoner in a cave. He sits in one position and looks at the wall of the cave. Above him in the cave is a burning hearth, and just below the hearth is a road along which some people carry objects, the shadows of which he initially sees on the wall. He knows neither the hearth nor the things, seeing only their shadows. This prisoner is in the realm of assimilation, for him truth is shadow and images. If he can free himself from the shackles and look around, he will understand that his previous truth is only a reflection of real things and the fire shining in the cave. Then from subjective phantoms and illusions, a person moves on to the knowledge that the sciences give about the sensory world, he learns to see natural things and the sun, the natural hearth of our cave. But at the same time, according to Plato, a natural scientist does not go beyond the cave, beyond opinion and faith, understanding the true causes of what is happening in the cave is alien to him. He will be able to achieve it only when he, having left the cave, comes out to real things and the real sun that illuminates them. Then he reaches true reality. However, he cannot immediately direct his gaze to the sun, i.e. comprehend the true cause of being and knowledge, he must accustom his eyes to its light, looking at its reflections in water, at the stars and objects. This is the area of mathematical reason. Plato sees in mathematical knowledge not an independent value, but only a tool for accustoming the soul to true knowledge, no longer based on sensory images. Explaining the pedagogical significance of the mathematical sciences, Plato builds such a sequence of mathematical training that should gradually free the soul from the “silt” of sensuality. The series is built in descending order of the sensory-concrete in mathematical knowledge: music, astronomy, stereometry, plane geometry, arithmetic. And only after a long period of habituation through mathematical knowledge can a person direct his gaze to the true sun and comprehend the “unpredicated beginning”, moving in pure concepts.
The cognitive ascent is described somewhat differently in the dialogue “The Symposium”. Here it is realized thanks to Eros, and the highest object of this erotic-cognitive journey is beauty in itself. The beginning here is passionate love (eros) for one beautiful body, then one must understand that the beauties of different beautiful bodies are one, i.e., as Plato says, one must pursue not a single beauty, but a beauty of the species, one and identical in all bodies. From here one must move on to the beauty of souls and love a beautiful soul, even if its body is no longer in its most flourishing state. In the soul, one must love what makes it beautiful, according to Plato, these are beautiful activities and beautiful laws. Then one must strive for beauty embodied in a multitude of beautiful knowledge or sciences, not being satisfied with any one of them, but contemplating the “great sea of beauty”. After this, a certain unified science or knowledge (etp.stttgsht|) of the beautiful will appear to the spiritual eyes, in which something amazing will be revealed – beautiful in itself. This will be the end of the path in which from one body we ascend to many, from bodies – to the soul and its beautiful activities, from this – to the sciences, finally, to the last science, in which the beautiful by nature is revealed.
Soul. We have already said that the doctrine of the soul is one of the semantic centers of Plato’s philosophy. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Plato’s philosophy without psychology. Both theoretical knowledge and practical activity, as understood by Plato, depend on the doctrine of the soul. The main thesis of Plato’s psychology is the assertion of the immortality of the soul. The fact that the soul outlives the body and can be embodied in various bodies, people, animals, plants, was discussed before Plato by the Orphics, Pythagoreans, and Empedocles. However, it was Plato who consistently developed this doctrine in the context of ontology, epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. Therefore, he can be called the founder of idealistic psychology. Why did Plato consider it necessary to introduce the concept of an immortal soul? Firstly, without an immortal soul, the doctrine of afterlife retribution, which alone can be the guarantor of total justice, is unthinkable. If the soul does not receive a reward for virtue and does not suffer for its vices, there is no justice. For Plato, such a situation nullifies any attempt to substantiate ethics. Secondly, without an immortal soul, i.e. a soul independent of the body in its existence, there can be no pure knowledge, since then the body with its sensations will not allow us to know the truth. And without true knowledge, no practical activity is possible, nor is the reconstruction of the Greek polis, which Plato dreamed of. Thirdly, an immortal soul is necessary for cosmology, it is the one that must set the cosmos in motion. If it turns out to be mortal, the cosmos will have to cease to exist at a certain point in time. In addition, an immortal soul, i.e. in no way dependent on the body and everything corporeal, allows us to explain the rationality of the cosmos, acting as the immediate cause of its meaningfulness and expediency. If there is no such soul, then the cosmos must be explained exclusively from physical causes, which, according to Plato, is impossible. To substantiate a rational and expedient cosmos, we must accept a rational and expedient cause, which turns out to be the soul.
Plato did not simply assert the immortality of the soul, he tried to prove it. Attempts at such a proof were presented by Plato in his famous dialogue Phaedo, in which Socrates, a few hours before his death, in a conversation with his closest friends tries to convince them that “I will not die entirely.” The first argument of Phaedo is as follows. Everything in the world of becoming arises from its opposite and turns, being destroyed, into its opposite. There are no exceptions to this rule, since otherwise all processes would come to one state, i.e., they would cease, and the whole world would become monotonous and motionless. For Plato, such a state is unthinkable, therefore, any emergence and destruction occur from opposite to opposite. This means that the dead arises from the living, and the living and the living from the dead. According to Plato, in this case it is obvious that souls are not destroyed, but remain in Hades, and from them the living arise again. The second argument states that the soul is immortal if knowledge is recollection. This is evidenced, firstly, by the fact that by means of leading questions one can force a person who is ignorant of some science to give the correct solution to any problem in this science. This means, according to Plato, that all truths reside in the soul of a person before his birth and earthly path, therefore, the soul is immortal. Secondly, when we assert about some sensually perceived things that they are, for example, equal, we simultaneously know that their equality is different from complete, true and perfect equality, therefore, we immediately distinguish equal things from equality as such, seeing the incomplete realization of equality itself by equal things. If this is so, then since all this, according to Plato, occurs in us from the very first sensation, then the knowledge of equality itself, with which we compare equal things given to us in sensation, must precede the first sensation, and therefore reside in us even before birth, which is possible only if our soul is immortal. According to the third argument, all things are divided into two kinds: the self-identical, unchangeable and simple, and the changeable and complex. Since the body is closer to the changeable and complex, the soul, on the contrary, most closely resembles the unchangeable and simple, which, by virtue of its simplicity, cannot be divided into any parts and destroyed. Moreover, the unchangeable and simple is comprehended only by thought, while the complex and destroyed by sensation. The soul, which can neither be seen nor heard, therefore appears among the invisible, unchangeable and simple. Then, according to Plato, the soul experiences the greatest joy in knowledge and thought, while sensations spoil and intoxicate the soul, therefore, striving for the eternal and incorporeal, it strives for what is similar to itself, therefore, it itself is eternal and unchangeable. Finally, since the soul is the ruler, and the body is subordinate to it, it is precisely the soul that is more like the divine, which is proper to rule, and not like the mortal, which is destined only to obey.The fourth argument is based on the assumption of the theory of the being itself or eidos. If we accept the theory of the existence of entities identical with themselves, it follows that these entities cannot receive into themselves what is opposite to them. In the first argument it was said that from opposite things opposite things come into being, but the opposites themselves, as is here asserted, cannot acquire the properties of their antipodes. Equality in itself will never be unequal, and parity will not pass into oddness. At the same time, there are certain things (Plato in the Phaedo calls them forms), which, although different from the eidos itself, nevertheless always have its properties and, just like it, do not receive its opposite. For example, the number three can never, while remaining itself, receive parity, and the number four, oddness. Likewise, the soul, whose main property, according to Plato, is animation, although not identical with life in itself, nevertheless, like life itself, cannot accept the property opposite to life, i.e. death. Consequently, the soul is immortal. Another argument proving the immortality of the soul was given by Plato in the dialogue “Phaedrus”. All bodies are set in motion either from the outside (inanimate) or from the inside (animate), i.e. they are either moved by some external force or move by themselves. The beginning of this movement in itself must be recognized as the soul. Everything that is moved by something external can cease its movement, while the self-moving is for itself the beginning of movement. If the soul is the beginning, then it cannot come from something else, otherwise it will not be the beginning, i.e. it cannot arise, and that which cannot arise will not perish. Consequently, the soul is immortal.they are either moved by some external force or move by themselves. The beginning of this movement by itself must be recognized as the soul. Everything that is moved by something external can cease its movement, while the self-moving is the beginning of movement for itself. If the soul is the beginning, then it cannot come from something else, otherwise it would not be the beginning, i.e. it cannot arise, and that which cannot arise will not perish. Consequently, the soul is immortal.they are either moved by some external force or move by themselves. The beginning of this movement by itself must be recognized as the soul. Everything that is moved by something external can cease its movement, while the self-moving is the beginning of movement for itself. If the soul is the beginning, then it cannot come from something else, otherwise it would not be the beginning, i.e. it cannot arise, and that which cannot arise will not perish. Consequently, the soul is immortal.
But what is the soul? Is it something simple or complex? Plato answers this question in the fourth book of the Republic. The soul, like an ideal society, should consist of three parts: a rational or calculating principle (λογιστικόν), a furious or angry (θυμός, θυμοειδές) and an unreasonable and lustful (άλόγιστόν τε rai έπιθυμητικόν). Does the entire soul act in acts of knowledge, anger or lust, or does each part perform its own separate functions? To solve this problem, Plato, for the first time in the history of thought, formulates the law of contradiction: no thing can simultaneously perform or suffer opposite actions. And parts of the soul, according to Plato, often act in the opposite direction. A rational consideration of good and benefit encounters the opposition of sensations, they just as cannot get what they want, due to the opposition of the rational principle. Therefore, according to Plato, it is obvious that we are dealing with two different parts of the soul. It is also possible to give arguments that will demonstrate the difference between the furious principle and the previous two parts. For example, children can already be angry and furious, but at the same time they do not understand, etc.
An interesting aspect of Plato’s psychology is his considerations about the difference in the volume of the parts of the soul. The largest part is the irrational-desirous part, the other two are significantly inferior to it, and it seems that the rational part was the smallest for Plato. At the same time, a healthy state of the whole soul is possible only when the rational part dominates, the furious part carries out the orders of the rational part, and the lustful part meekly obeys, not daring to dream of its own share of power. In this case, according to Plato, justice is realized in the soul, since each part does what is established for it by nature. In “Phaedrus” Plato gives a remarkable mythological illustration of this teaching about the parts of the soul. He compares the soul to a chariot driven by a charioteer (the rational part). Two horses are harnessed to it: one beautiful and perfect, white (the furious part), and the other wayward and nasty, black (the lustful part). The charioteer drives, the good horse obeys the charioteer, and the black one pulls to the side. The chariots of various souls follow the chariots of the gods and try to behold the transcendental place where the true being resides. However, not all succeed. Unlike the gods, who calmly contemplate this place, unhindered by their horses, the souls of all other beings cannot so completely contemplate the truth, for the bad horse constantly hinders the charioteer and the noble white horse. Therefore, only the best souls can slightly behold something of the truth, while others collide with each other and fall down, losing their plumage. Souls that are constant in their contemplation of the truth are quickly freed from being in the world. Those who are less successful in this are forced by the immutable law of Adrasteia to be reborn in human and animal bodies. And those souls that have never seen anything truly existing in the world cannot receive a human body at all and can incarnate only in animals. To be human, according to Plato, means to know the truth. Every human soul knows the truth, having seen it in the heavenly realm, but at the same time every human soul must again acquire its plumage in order to soar beyond the heavenly limits, for the fate of man consists in the soul sometimes soaring high and seeing the essence itself, sometimes falling down and must again and again try to rise to the gods and the divine. Plato draws a ladder of human rebirths, when the soul that has seen the most moves into the body of a philosopher, and the lowest position is occupied by the soul of a tyrant. At the same time, thanks to a just life, it is always possible to rise to the next step of perfection in the next rebirth.
The psychology of Plato’s Timaeus will be discussed in the chapter on cosmology. Here we will also point out the main points of the doctrine of the soul in Plato’s last work, the Laws. The problem of the soul in this, Plato’s largest work, is considered in the light of the need to prove the existence of the gods. Plato reduces this question to the problem of the relationship between nature and art: which of them arose first and which second. Opponents of the existence of gods defend the primacy and priority of the emergence of natural elements, while art in space appears only after nature, depends on it and imitates it. Nature itself, according to their teaching, is completely devoid of reason, which is only a secondary and artificial formation, a kind of convention. In the same way, legislation does not exist from nature, but is an arbitrary construct, different at different times and among different peoples. Plato’s task was to show that the situation is just the opposite. Art is primary, and material elements only follow it. In such a case, the very concept of nature must be completely changed; reason and art turn out to be nature and primary. And legislation is transformed from a matter of human arbitrariness into a beautiful, divine and primary creation. For this purpose, it is necessary to prove the primacy of the soul, the main agent of reason in the world, in relation to the material primary elements, to dry and moist, hot and cold, etc. The proof is constructed similarly to the proof in Phaedrus. In the world there are moving and resting things. What set the former in motion? Such a factor may be something that received motion from something else, but this other must have received motion from something else. But in such a case, we must assume that there is some motion that sets both itself and something else in motion, otherwise we could not find the source and beginning of motion, constantly going into infinity. This moving itself and something else is the soul, and therefore it exists before the bodies that move thanks to it. Consequently, the soul and all its properties (reason, memory, morals, care, etc.) exist before the body and everything corporeal, i.e. before the material elements of the cosmos. In the Laws, Plato, unlike the Republic and Phaedrus, teaches not about three, but only about two types of soul, good and bad. When a good, i.e. rational, soul reigns in the cosmos, the cosmos moves measuredly and orderly, but when deviations from such movement are observed in the cosmos, when frenzy and chaos appear in it, this means that power has passed to the second, bad and unreasonable type of soul.
What are the gods, whose existence was proved by Plato through the concept of the soul? The gods are nothing other than the souls of the heavenly bodies, the Sun, the Moon and the stars. Plato does not say how they relate to their bodies, citing the difficulty of the question. In general, the doctrine of the soul is one of the most complex in Platonic philosophy. Plato himself saw well all the difficulties that arise before a person who asserts the superiority of the soul over the body and its immortality. For him, this testified to the fact that our knowledge, after all, very closely connected with the sensually perceived, can with great difficulty comprehend and express in a definition that which exists primarily, before the body and its sensual perception. Therefore, Plato is far from categorical in his psychology, he offers certain attempts to solve psychological problems, but he is always ready for rethinking and a new formulation of his positions. But at the same time, he cannot do without the doctrine of the immortal and incorporeal soul, since it is connected with the most important Platonic conviction of the primacy of the rational over the irrational, the logical over the material, art over nature.
Being. The doctrine of being is undoubtedly the very center of Platonic philosophy, it is here that the foundation of that philosophical trend, the most vivid exponent of which was Plato, idealism, is rooted. In fact, Plato’s doctrine is often simply “called the theory of ideas”, at the heart of it lies Plato’s conviction in the existence of a truly existing world, which is the true cause of what happens in the world perceived by our senses. Where did this Platonic conviction come from? Aristotle tried to answer this question in his time. According to Aristotle, the theory of ideas is a combination of two previous teachings. Socrates’ doctrine of general definitions and Heraclitus’ doctrine of the changeability and impermanence of everything sensually perceived. Plato, according to Aristotle, simply endowed Socrates’ general concepts with independent existence (as philosophers say, “hypostatized them”) and contrasted them with the ever-flowing and changing world of the sensory. Thus, he received two worlds. Others speak of the influence on Plato primarily from Parmenides with his doctrine of eternal and unchanging being. Such influences could, of course, have taken place, but, in our opinion, it is much more interesting to see whether it is possible to find an answer to the question of the origin of Plato’s theory of ideas in Plato’s writings themselves.
We have already said that in many definition dialogues (Lachetus, Euthyphro, Charmides, Meno) the same procedure is carried out. Plato’s Socrates asks for a definition of some thing, his interlocutor usually first gives an example of such a thing, then Socrates says that he is looking not for this or that instance of this thing, but for the thing itself, i.e., that which is equally present in all things called by this name, but at the same time is not reducible to them. Plato starts from the fact that in our experience we deal with a multitude of things. To some such multitude names are applied which are common to all their elements. Each element of the multitude can change, decrease or increase, become red or white, or even be destroyed, but the name common to it and the other members of this multitude will not absorb any of this into itself, it will remain equal to itself. What is designated by this name can either exist objectively or be our own creation. In the second case, only changing things will remain in the nature of things, and we will have no possibility of knowledge. And we have already said that Plato proceeds from the fact that the real embodiment of knowledge already exists, this is mathematical knowledge. Consequently, the first option remains: the denotations of common names actually exist, it is they that guarantee the possibility of knowledge, and not just sensations. Naturally, these denotations must have properties that are completely different from those found in objects of the sensory world. They must be, firstly, eternal and unchanging, and secondly, they express unity much more than plurality, i.e. they are a kind of limits of those properties that are scattered in the sensory world. Thus, the main points of Plato’s ontology are the provisions on the existence of the eternal and unchanging world of true being and the opposing world of origin and destruction, change and plurality. The world of truth is comprehended by reason, the world of change or becoming – by feelings.
Let us look at these provisions more closely. What definitions does Plato use to characterize the world of the truly existing? Any sensory thing can be called by many names, defined by many predicates, and be the bearer of many properties. Let us assume that we are dealing with a table. In addition to being a table, it can be square, rectangular, round, made of oak, ash, chipboard, or plastic, be a desk, computer, kitchen, dining, work, or even a conference table, not to mention a buffet table. It can have five, ten, or fifty parts, but since all of this is a table, then, according to Plato, there must be something common that all of these tables share. This common thing is the “table in itself,” which has certain characteristics. Firstly, if all visible tables have other properties in addition to being a table, then the “table in itself” has no other properties, it is defined only through itself, it has only its own properties and nothing else. Plato characterizes this property of the truly existing with the terms “in itself” and “uniform” (μονοειδές). Secondly, if there is nothing in it except itself, then it must be eternal and unchanging, for there is nothing in it that could pass into something else, i.e. change. Thirdly, if it is only itself, then it must be something completely simple, in which there are not and cannot be any parts. Fourthly, since it is eternal, no definitions of time are applicable to it, it was not and will not be, it simply is. Fifthly, since simple, eternal and unchanging objects lying outside of time are not given to our senses, then the table itself can be comprehended only by thinking pure from everything sensory, it is intelligible, and not sensually perceived.
Accordingly, any thing in the sensory world has many properties, it can also have properties that are opposite in the same respect and at the same moment in time. Consequently, logic is inapplicable in the sensory sphere, the true object of which remains only the world of eternal and unchanging entities. Sensory things are constantly changing, opposite things constantly appear from opposite things. Any thing is complex, having many parts. It exists in time and is cognized by the senses. Finally, the most important point in Plato’s description of the sensory world is the doctrine of causality, which allows us to understand the relationship between the truly existing world and the sensory world in Plato. According to Plato, no rational explanation of causality is possible within the sensory world. Why does a person grow and increase, why and how is one person larger than another? To answer these questions, Plato reduces them to the following mathematical formulation. How does the number “two” arise? Two can arise either by adding one unit to another, or by dividing one unit into two parts. In both cases the result is the same, but for Plato this is precisely what testifies to the fallacy of such procedures, for as a result of directly opposite actions we obtain the same answer. Moreover, in the case of addition it is impossible to rationally explain what becomes greater, that which is added, or that which is added to. Furthermore, if we compare two people and say that one is greater than the other by a head, i.e. the head is that by which one person is greater than the other, then in some other case the previously greater by a head person will turn out to be less by the same head compared to a third person. Consequently, he will be greater and lesser by virtue of the same thing, which is impossible from the point of view of Platonic logic. Thus, remaining within the limits of only the sensory world, we cannot explain the reasons why one thing happens this way and another differently. For such an explanation it is necessary to assume a different causality. Why is one thing greater than another? The correct answer, according to Plato, is as follows. A large thing participates in the large in itself or in the idea of large, a smaller thing in the small in itself or in the idea of smallness. If one and the same sensible thing is larger than another thing, but smaller than a third, then it simultaneously participates in the ideas of great and small. If something increases, then the reason for this will be that this increasing thing has become involved in the idea of greatness, if it decreases, then it has become involved in the idea of smallness, and so on. This answer, although, according to Plato himself, is simple, nevertheless it allows us to rationally explain what happens in the world of becoming. Thus, the true causes of things are ideas or truly existing, that which exists in itself. The causation of which Plato speaks is purely logical. Physical causation is not rationally justified; the only reason why things are called this way and not otherwise is these,and not other properties, is their participation (μέθεξις) in the corresponding ideas or species, representing in themselves the fullness of the given property. If a thing is included in some species, this means, according to Plato, that it participates in this species, existing completely independently of the individuals included in it. In addition to participation, Plato tries to depict the relationship between ideas and things, calling the former “examples” or “models” (παραδείγματα), according to which sensible things are made, and this relationship of things to ideas he calls “similarity” (όμοίωσις).
Among the ideas of the world of true existence, as well as among sensory things, there is a certain kind of hierarchy. According to Plato, at the head of all existence, at its summit, is the idea of the good. Why does Plato give preference to this idea? Plato’s argumentation is entirely rational. In any of our actions and cognitions, the most important thing is why we do it or learn it. If we do not know the benefit or good that comes from our cognition or action, they are useless. Consequently, no action or idea can do without the knowledge of the good, and it turns out to be the most fundamental idea that must be premised on everything else. The question of the essence of the good, says Plato, is one of the most difficult, therefore, it must be approached by means of an image and likeness. Plato uses the image of the sun to illustrate the essence of the good. For our visual experience, according to Plato, three things are necessary: the faculty of sight and its organ, the color of the object we see, and, finally, the most important thing, the light that enables our vision to see the color of the object; without this sunlight, no vision could arise. What is true of sensory experience can be transferred by analogy to the world of true existence, to the intelligible world. It then turns out that in addition to the mind that cognizes essences, and the essences cognizable by the mind, we must assume the presence of a source of intelligible light, the idea of the good. Moreover, just as the sun gives to sensible things not only the possibility of being cognized, but also existence itself, so the idea of the good endows the intelligible not only with knowability, but also with being. It, says Plato, gives things science and truth. As the sun surpasses all things to which it bestows knowledge and being, so the idea of the good surpasses the intelligible world, being higher than the world of true being and surpassing it in dignity and power. But the idea of the good is not entirely unknowable, nor is it an object of ecstasy, as the Neoplatonists will understand it, but is the object of the greatest science (μέγνστον μάθημα), which can be looked at only after a long philosophical preparation. As the sun can be seen by our eyes, although not without difficulty, so the idea of the good is comprehended by our mind, if we have devoted our whole life to philosophy and to research that takes place in pure concepts.
Thus, at the summit of the intelligible world is the idea of the good. The intelligible world itself is divided into two sections. Immediately after the idea of the good comes the world of entities comprehensible by pure thought. This is truth itself, reality itself, being as such. After it comes the world of mathematical entities, which are nothing other than images (εικόνες) of the truly existing world. This is also a completely intelligible reality, but sensory images are used to know it. According to Plato, all the objects of arithmetic and geometry contain entities of a higher order, to which they can be reduced. Then comes the sensually perceived world, which is also divided into two sections. The first is the objects themselves visible to us, the second is their shadows and reflections. The sun, the highest of the gods visible to us, the offspring and image of the highest idea of the good, rules over this entire sensory world.
We have described the ontology that Plato developed primarily in dialogues such as Laches, Euthyphro, Charmides, Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, and Republic. Many of these dialogues were written primarily to introduce the educated Athenian public to Plato’s main ideas, so many problems and concepts were presented in an extremely simple and popular manner. Such a presentation gave the picky critic the opportunity to point out certain contradictions in Plato’s concept of being, primarily the lack of clarity in the relationship between ideas and things, as well as the difficulties in defining the idea itself. The main problems were summarized by Plato in the first part of the dialogue Parmenides. If we assume that ideas, genera, and species exist separately from things, how can they interact with things? If, for example, equal things participate in equality in itself, they participate in it either as a whole, or some things participate in one part of it, others in another. But this is impossible. If an equal thing participates in the whole species, then obviously another equal thing cannot participate in it. If all equal things participate in parts of the same species, then they will not participate in it as a whole. Next, we come to a species by seeing the common properties of a set of things. Seeing equal things, we postulate the existence of the species “equality in itself.” But if we now look at equal things and equality in itself, we see what they have in common, and therefore we must postulate the existence of another equality in itself. Finally, if we say that species exist entirely apart from the things that participate in them, how can we know these separate species? Indeed, if we assume the separateness of species from things, then neither species influence things, nor can things in any way perceive species, and therefore we can never know species, and consequently any possibility of true knowledge, for which Plato’s theory of ideas was created, is destroyed. We see that the main problem that Plato encountered was the definition of a species as existing in itself, from which the characteristic of the “separateness” of species from things followed. Therefore, it is necessary to show in what sense a species exists in itself, and in what case such a definition should not be applied to it.
Plato approaches the solution of this problem in the second part of the Parmenides. In the first hypothesis of the second part, he shows that if we assume a certain species—in the Parmenides this species is the one in itself—whose content is exhausted only by its fundamental characteristic, i.e., unity, we are forced to deny any other properties in it. We are forced to deny its form, its nameability, its knowability, then we will have to deny even its existence, for the characteristic of existence will create a duality in pure unity, and the species will lose its definition. Finally, a species that is limited to its own definition and does not accept anything else will not be able to satisfy even this characteristic, for without the assumption of existence, the judgment “the one is one” is false, i.e., in such a case, it cannot even have its own content. Consequently, such a species is impossible. In the second hypothesis, Plato offers an alternative to this understanding of a species. To overcome the aporias of the first hypothesis, it is necessary to assume a species in which not only its own content but also something else, existence, will be present from the very beginning. In this case, it will initially contain two species united in it. It will no longer be an indivisible monad, but a logical organism, a whole in which certain parts are initially present. Then it will have a form, a name, it is possible to pass judgment on it, it is subject to knowledge. Only in the case of the assumption of another, second species, existence, can it not only exist, but also correspond to its definition, i.e., in the case of the Parmenides, be one. Thus, in the Parmenides, Plato formulates his theory of ideas more precisely. If earlier Plato emphasized to a greater extent the independent and separate existence of ideas in relation to visible things, emphasized the self-sufficiency of the idea, now Plato shows that this self-sufficiency is relative. Although ideas surpass things in their unity and independence, nevertheless, neither one nor the other can be absolutized. If previously only a sensory thing could contain several different properties caused by the thing’s belonging to several species, now even ideas themselves can contain different and even contradictory definitions, due to which ideas can no longer be closed in themselves, but represent parts of a large ideal whole. Thus, trying to avoid the difficulties described, Plato in the Parmenides eliminates the fundamental gap between ideas and things, brings them closer together and makes them in some sense homogeneous.
Plato also tries to bridge the gap between ideas and things in the dialogue Sophist, where both ideas and things are subordinated to a more general category of being. The main definition of being in the Sophist is the possibility (δύναμις) of acting or undergoing. In the Sophist, Plato criticizes the friends of species or ideas (είδών), who speak of an eternal and unchanging, self-identical essence, contrasting it with a constantly changing becoming. They claim that the true essence does not endure any suffering. However, they admit that the rational part of the soul knows this essence. If this is so, then, according to Plato, they must admit that this essence undergoes knowledge. If it is known, something undergoes, then there is a certain movement in it. Consequently, the world of truly existing cannot be depicted as completely static and motionless; there is movement, life, soul, and reason in it. At the same time, it also contains peace, without which no knowledge of truth would be possible. We see that here in Plato the world of true being is endowed with contradictory definitions, which were previously characteristic only of the world of becoming. In the Sophist, the result of Plato’s reflections on the world of true being is the interaction of the five highest types of being: being, rest, movement, identity and difference. In relation to being, the other four types play the role of non-being, and being gives them the possibility of existence. Thus, in the Sophist, Plato continues the clarification of the theory of ideas begun in the Parmenides. Plato deduces ontological consequences from the fact that ideas are cognized by our reason, showing that this not only separates them from our sensory experience, but also in a certain sense brings them closer to it. The concept of being “in itself” is clarified, it is shown that it is unthinkable outside of a certain interaction with both our knowledge and other ideas. Finally, the concept of the existent, as it is formulated in the Sophist, allows us to unite ideas and things into one world, to overcome the ontological gap between the sensory and intelligible worlds, and to substantiate the ontological possibility of ideas causing things. Plato’s ontology, as it is formulated in the Parmenides and the Sophist, opened up new paths for the philosophical thought of the Greeks, and Plato’s great student, Aristotle, was quick to follow the path laid out by Plato.
Cosmology. One of Plato’s most important contributions to the treasury of human thought was undoubtedly his cosmology. Its influence in the history of philosophy and science is truly colossal, the cosmological concepts of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the New Age are unthinkable without a Platonic basis, and even in our time, physicists find confirmation of their doctrines in Plato’s cosmological intuitions. Plato’s cosmology is set forth in one of his most profound and complex dialogues, “Timaeus”, in which a certain Timaeus from Italian Locris speaks about the cosmos and its origin. Plato’s approach to the construction of cosmology differs significantly from many others. According to Plato, we cannot have exact knowledge of the cosmos. Exact knowledge, as we already know, extends to the realm of the incorporeal, and the most exact sciences are dialectical movement in pure concepts and mathematical reasoning. Cosmology, by definition, must speak about the cosmos, i.e. about the world of origin and destruction, and consequently, knowledge of this world can be appropriate, only hypothetical, but not reliable. In this way, Plato’s vision of the cosmos differs from the previous concepts of cosmology among early physiologists and is polemically directed against them.
Thus, at the basis of Plato’s teaching about the cosmos lies the distinction between two spheres of being, the eternally existing, unchanging and self-identical, on the one hand, and the temporary, arising and perishing. The first is known by thinking, carried out in reasoning, the other – by irrational sensation, which is expressed in opinion. The cosmos belongs to the second sphere, therefore it cannot exist eternally and unchangingly, but it arose, and, therefore, it must have had a cause, for everything that arose has a cause. It is very difficult to know this cause, therefore Plato limits himself to calling it a “master”, “craftsman” and does not explore its nature in the “Timaeus”. How does this master craft the world? Plato teaches that in order to create a beautiful cosmos, the creator must be good, not envy his creation, and also look at the self-identical and unchanging model, the “paradigm”. If we look at a thing that has arisen by chance and is changeable, nothing beautiful, according to Plato, can come out. We see that, according to Plato, two conditions are needed to create any thing: a creative cause and a model, looking at which this cause creates. In the case of the cosmos, Plato specifically indicates the definitions of these conditions: the creative cause is good and generally the best, and the model is eternal and unchanging. The goodness of the master leads to the fact that he wants everything created to be like him, i.e., as good, kind, and sound (αγαθόν) as possible. To do this, the master brings everything visible from disorder to order. Plato’s demiurge, like the Greek craftsman, does not create their creation out of nothing, they bring into order the material that is already available. As we have seen many times, Platonic thought, even when it discusses the most complex and lofty matters, does not lose its connection with the earth, in this case with Plato’s awareness of the daily work of the Greek craftsman. For a creation to be of the highest quality, it must, according to Plato, be rational, for the rational is always better than the irrational. Since reason, according to Plato, can only exist in the soul, the universal craftsman attached a soul to the body of the cosmos, thereby making it an animate living being endowed with reason. The cosmos as a living being is made according to the model of an intelligible living being, which includes all intelligible living beings; therefore, such a model can only be singular. On this basis, Plato rejects the atomists’ hypothesis about the existence of countless worlds. One all-encompassing intelligible model implies one and only one copy. The cosmos is corporeal, visible and tangible. According to Plato, this implies the presence of two cosmic-forming corporeal elements, fire, the condition of visibility, and earth, the cause of tangibility. To form a relationship, two elements, in turn, presuppose the presence of a third, and form a geometric proportion with it (2: 4 = 4:8). However, three elements can only form a plane, while to obtain a three-dimensional body, a fourth element is also needed,united with the preceding three according to the same laws of proportion (1:2 = 2:4 = 4:8). Therefore, God was forced to add to the original elements of fire and earth two connecting media of water and air (fire is related to air in the same way as air is to water, and air is related to water in the same way as water is to earth), obtaining as a result a cosmos united by a friendly unity (φιλία) and indestructible. Outside the single cosmos there is and cannot be anything, since in that case it would not be perfect and united, and in addition would suffer from diseases and old age, which are always caused by an influx from outside. Since the cosmos is perfect and all-encompassing, it can only have a spherical shape. This sphere is devoid of any organs, since an organ is needed only for interaction with the external environment, and outside the cosmos there is nothing corporeal. The cosmos is self-sufficient, and of the various types of movement it can only be characterized by one, always the same rotation in a circle within itself. It has already been said that the cosmos has a soul. What is this soul? According to Plato, the soul, created before the corporeal cosmos, is formed from two basic essences: from the eternal, self-identical, indivisible and divisible corporeal essence. The demiurge, taking these two types, formed from them a third, middle type, and then mixed these three types into a single whole, which is the soul. Then, the demiurge divides the soul into parts, and Plato uses Pythagorean mathematical principles here, making a complex whole from the soul, the parts of which are in arithmetic, geometric and harmonic proportions to each other. Finally, the demiurge divides the resulting composition into two halves, superimposes them in the form of the letter X on each other and bends, making two circles from them, a circle of the identical and a circle of the other, and the circle of the other was divided into seven unequal circles (the orbits of the planets). In order to achieve a greater likeness to an intelligible living being that exists eternally, the universal master creates a “moving image of eternity,” i.e. time, in its constant and numerically measured movement recreating, as far as possible, eternity, which abides in a certain single “moment.” The numerical proportionality of movement, the correctness and lawfulness of the change of days, months, and years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as possible for something that is involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cosmos arose in time, or asked what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, only eternity “was,” although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is.”having as a result a cosmos united by friendly unity (φιλία) and indestructible. Outside the one cosmos there is not and cannot be anything, since in that case it would not be perfect and united, and in addition would suffer from diseases and old age, which are always caused by an influx from outside. Since the cosmos is perfect and all-encompassing, it can only have a spherical shape. This sphere is devoid of any organs, since an organ is needed only for interaction with the external environment, and outside the cosmos there is nothing corporeal. The cosmos is self-sufficient, and of the various types of movement it can only be characterized by one, the always identical rotation in a circle within itself. It has already been said that the cosmos has a soul. What is this soul? According to Plato, the soul, created before the corporeal cosmos, is formed from two basic essences: from the eternal, self-identical indivisible and divisible corporeal essence. The demiurge, having taken these two species, formed from them a third, middle species, and then mixed these three species into a single whole, which is the soul. Then, the demiurge divides the soul into parts, and Plato uses Pythagorean mathematical principles here, making a complex whole from the soul, the parts of which are in arithmetic, geometric and harmonic proportions to each other. Finally, the demiurge divides the resulting composition into two halves, superimposes them in the form of the letter X on each other and bends them, making two circles from them, the circle of the identical and the circle of the other, and the circle of the other was divided into seven unequal circles (the orbits of the planets). For greater similarity to the intelligible living being, existing eternally, the universal master creates a “moving image of eternity”, i.e. time, in its constant and measured by number movement recreating, as far as possible, eternity, which abides in a certain single “moment”. The numerical proportionality of movement, the correctness and lawfulness of the change of days, months, years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as this is possible for something involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the cosmos arose in time, or to ask what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, only eternity “was”, although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is”.having as a result a cosmos united by friendly unity (φιλία) and indestructible. Outside the one cosmos there is not and cannot be anything, since in that case it would not be perfect and united, and in addition would suffer from diseases and old age, which are always caused by an influx from outside. Since the cosmos is perfect and all-encompassing, it can only have a spherical shape. This sphere is devoid of any organs, since an organ is needed only for interaction with the external environment, and outside the cosmos there is nothing corporeal. The cosmos is self-sufficient, and of the various types of movement it can only be characterized by one, the always identical rotation in a circle within itself. It has already been said that the cosmos has a soul. What is this soul? According to Plato, the soul, created before the corporeal cosmos, is formed from two basic essences: from the eternal, self-identical indivisible and divisible corporeal essence. The demiurge, having taken these two species, formed from them a third, middle species, and then mixed these three species into a single whole, which is the soul. Then, the demiurge divides the soul into parts, and Plato uses Pythagorean mathematical principles here, making a complex whole from the soul, the parts of which are in arithmetic, geometric and harmonic proportions to each other. Finally, the demiurge divides the resulting composition into two halves, superimposes them in the form of the letter X on each other and bends them, making two circles from them, the circle of the identical and the circle of the other, and the circle of the other was divided into seven unequal circles (the orbits of the planets). For greater similarity to the intelligible living being, existing eternally, the universal master creates a “moving image of eternity”, i.e. time, in its constant and measured by number movement recreating, as far as possible, eternity, which abides in a certain single “moment”. The numerical proportionality of movement, the correctness and lawfulness of the change of days, months, years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as this is possible for something involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the cosmos arose in time, or to ask what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, only eternity “was”, although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is”.always the same rotation in a circle in itself. It has already been said that the cosmos has a soul. What is this soul? According to Plato, the soul, created before the corporeal cosmos, is formed from two basic entities: from the eternal, self-identical, indivisible and divisible corporeal essence. The demiurge, taking these two types, formed from them a third, middle type, and then mixed these three types into a single whole, which is the soul. Then, the demiurge divides the soul into parts, and Plato uses Pythagorean mathematical principles here, making a complex whole out of the soul, the parts of which are in arithmetic, geometric and harmonic proportions to each other. Finally, the demiurge divides the resulting composition into two halves, superimposes them in the form of the letter X on each other and bends them, making two circles out of them, a circle of the identical and a circle of the other, and the circle of the other was divided into seven unequal circles (the orbits of the planets). In order to achieve a greater likeness to an intelligible living being that exists eternally, the universal master creates a “moving image of eternity,” i.e. time, in its constant and numerically measured movement recreating, as far as possible, eternity, which abides in a certain single “moment.” The numerical proportionality of movement, the correctness and lawfulness of the change of days, months, and years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as possible for something that is involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cosmos arose in time, or asked what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, only eternity “was,” although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is.”always the same rotation in a circle in itself. It has already been said that the cosmos has a soul. What is this soul? According to Plato, the soul, created before the corporeal cosmos, is formed from two basic entities: from the eternal, self-identical, indivisible and divisible corporeal essence. The demiurge, taking these two types, formed from them a third, middle type, and then mixed these three types into a single whole, which is the soul. Then, the demiurge divides the soul into parts, and Plato uses Pythagorean mathematical principles here, making a complex whole out of the soul, the parts of which are in arithmetic, geometric and harmonic proportions to each other. Finally, the demiurge divides the resulting composition into two halves, superimposes them in the form of the letter X on each other and bends them, making two circles out of them, a circle of the identical and a circle of the other, and the circle of the other was divided into seven unequal circles (the orbits of the planets). In order to achieve a greater likeness to an intelligible living being that exists eternally, the universal master creates a “moving image of eternity,” i.e. time, in its constant and numerically measured movement recreating, as far as possible, eternity, which abides in a certain single “moment.” The numerical proportionality of movement, the correctness and lawfulness of the change of days, months, and years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as possible for something that is involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cosmos arose in time, or asked what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, only eternity “was,” although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is.”the regularity and conformity of the change of days, months, years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as this is possible for someone involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the cosmos arose in time, or to ask what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, there was only eternity, although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is”.the regularity and conformity of the change of days, months, years testify to constancy in the transient and, therefore, reflect this constancy, as far as this is possible for someone involved in variability and fluidity. Time, according to Plato, is created only together with the cosmos; it does not exist independently. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the cosmos arose in time, or to ask what was before the emergence of the cosmos. The cosmos arose together with time, and it is impossible to separate them from each other. Before the cosmos, there was only eternity, although it is impossible to say “was” about eternity, for it is characterized only by the eternal and unchanging “is”.
The instruments of time, i.e., that which brings measure and number to the mutability of time, are the sun, moon, and five planets, whose bodies revolve together with the circle of the other. In the center is the Earth, then the Moon, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Since the intelligible living being includes all the genera of life, it is necessary for perfect assimilation that all these genera be in space. There are four of these genera: the heavenly race of the gods, the aeronautical, the aquatic, and the terrestrial beings. The divine race is, first of all, the fixed stars, created from fire, perfectly spherical, which, remaining in a strictly fixed position relative to one another, move along the circle of the identical. This is the most perfect kind of living being, for they are maximally constant and unchangeable. From that moment on, belief in the supreme perfection of the fixed stars became one of the most important components of ancient and medieval cosmologies. The planets, created after the stars, also belong to this divine species. Finally, Plato speaks of the gods of mythology, but only referring to the fact that the law commands one to recognize these gods, and the law must be obeyed. Everything created by the demiurge himself, although it had a birth, will remain forever. In order for mortal living beings to appear, the demiurge must hand over their creation into the hands of the gods he has created, for what the Master himself creates is doomed to eternity. The demiurge creates the immortal part of other living beings, their souls, whose composition, however, is less perfect than that of the world soul – it has more of an element of changeability. The number of souls is equal to the number of stars, and each soul is initially placed on its own star, where it learns from the demiurge the nature of the Universe and the moral law operating in it. Then, the souls must receive mortal bodies from other gods on various planets. These bodies are, so to speak, of the second kind in comparison with the heavenly bodies, for they are subject to destruction. Once in bodies, souls are subject to external influences that prevent the correct course of the circles of the identical and the other. And their task is to overcome this external influence of the body, to overcome the obstacles to the spiritual life that manifest themselves in passions and sensations. If they were able to do this, they return to their star, if not, they are destined to be reborn as lower beings (women, animals).
So far we have been talking mainly about what is created in the cosmos by the mind, since the world soul, the gods and individual souls are produced by the demiurge, who represents reason and art in Plato. However, in addition to the mind, necessity also participates in the production of the cosmos, since the cosmos consists of four elements. However, unlike Empedocles, Plato’s elements are not the most original level of the corporeal. This follows from the fact that there are no elements as such. There is a constant process of transformation of one element into another, that into a third, and so on. This means for Plato that behind the elements there is a more original reality, that the elements are only forms that this reality takes. It is very difficult to define it, since it is devoid of any form whatsoever, and therefore cannot be named or known. We comprehend this “receiver of every birth”, which seems to feed everything corporeally formed, only by some “illegal reasoning”, concluding from the mutual transformation of the elements to their common nature. This Platonic “receptacle” will then be transformed into “matter” by Aristotle and will become a key category in the further development of philosophy. Thus, the Platonic cosmos is the interaction of mind and necessity, in which the main role belongs to the mind. For the formation of the cosmos, an intelligible world (“paradigm”) and a “receptacle” or “receptacle” of every birth are necessary.
Political philosophy. Political life and its understanding have always been at the center of Plato’s philosophy. From the “Apology” to the “Laws”, the problems of organizing the polis, the city-state, stand in the foreground for Plato. And it is no coincidence that two of Plato’s largest works, the dialogues “The Republic” and “Laws”, are devoted to these problems. At the same time, other dialogues are almost always filled with political thought. Even in works devoted to the most abstract topics, Plato does not lose sight of the polis and its organization. Both Plato’s doctrine of being and his doctrine of knowledge were developed to answer the most burning question of Plato’s time: what should a true polis be like. Plato’s political philosophy is difficult to analyze primarily because within its framework, those problems are developed that will later take a special place in philosophy. If we take the Republic, we will find in it ethics, gnoseology, epistemology, psychology, ontology, aesthetics, and finally, eschatology. All of this is fused by Plato into a single whole, outside of which the parts cannot exist. For Plato, the behavior of an individual, his ideals, his knowledge, his psychological properties can only be understood within the polis. In the Republic, Plato refuses to define what justice is for an individual, and moves on to consider justice in the polis. According to Plato, the definition of the latter will ultimately allow us to comprehend the individual virtue of justice, and, therefore, to determine how one must live in order to live well.
Plato sees the reason for the emergence of the state in the economic and materialistic factor. An individual cannot provide himself with the necessary things, so he is forced to unite with others to satisfy his needs through collective labor. Plato considers food, housing, clothing to be the first and most important needs, so the original polis should consist of the corresponding artisans (plowman, builder, tailor, shoemaker). Since, according to Plato, each person is predetermined by nature to the corresponding activity and should not engage in another, these artisans should only do their own business, and new types of artisans (carpenter, blacksmith) should appear for the production of means of production. To exchange the products of activity between different artisans, a market, a coin, which Plato defines as a “symbol of exchange”, as well as a new type of artisan (retailers, shopkeepers) are necessary. Since one polis also cannot provide itself with everything it needs, it is forced to engage in foreign trade, exchange with another polis. This entails both the emergence of several more specializations (merchants, helmsmen, sailors, shipbuilders), and an increase in the volume of production in the polis, an increase in the number of artisans working not only for the domestic market. Finally, a complete polis also requires laborers who do not possess any art, but sell their physical strength. A polis in which all this is present satisfies all the necessary needs of its inhabitants, its life is simple and perfect and does not need either justice or injustice.
This is Plato’s image of the original polis, living according to nature and natural needs. Plato calls it “true” or “healthy”. However, it can change into another form if it develops a desire for luxury. In this case, a healthy and simple way of life is replaced by a pursuit of rare and exquisite pleasures. Spices, incense, gold and ivory jewelry, poets, artists, actors, specialists in women’s cosmetics – all this floods such a city. The number of relevant artisans who need to be fed increases, the land that the “true polis” made do with is no longer enough, and, therefore, wars with neighboring cities for territory begin. Waging such wars requires the appearance of another type of specialist who are not present in the true polis – guards or warriors. The idea of a people’s militia is rejected by Plato due to the principle of specialization. The guard must be strong in body, have good perceptions. In his soul there must simultaneously be rage and meekness, the first – to the enemy, the second – to his own. The guardian must undergo appropriate education, the main types of which are the art of music, which cultivates the soul, and the art of gymnastics, which improves the body.
The art of music, which includes both poetry and music, must undergo a radical transformation. It must not go where the free mind and fantasy of the composer takes it, but be based on virtue, since its goal, according to Plato, is not free creativity, but the introduction of moral concepts into the young soul. Therefore, the art of music must be purified of everything that can sow doubt in the young soul about justice and virtue. This mainly concerns poetic representations of the gods, when they are depicted as fighting among themselves, taking revenge on each other, etc. Since gods, demons and heroes superior to ordinary people are a kind of models for the behavior of guardians, the myths telling about them must be purified of everything that carries moral corruption. All poetry that speaks about the gods must be based on the following provisions. First, God is always good, is the cause only of good and is neither the cause of everything, nor even the cause of evil. If a deity brings misfortune upon someone, it does not commit evil, but by punishing him corrects the person and directs him to goodness and justice. Secondly, God is a completely simple and unchangeable being who does not take any other forms than his own, therefore it is not allowed to speak in the polis about the gods changing their appearance and taking on some other, and the corresponding myths must be prohibited. In addition, God never deceives or bewitches us, appearing to us in different forms, for lying is also alien to his nature. In addition, terrible myths telling about the kingdom of the afterlife must be eliminated, since they make people afraid of death. And according to Plato, the fear of death is the basis of all other fear. Nor can one reproduce complaints and groans in poetry, for this softens the souls of warriors. The depiction of violent laughter must also be excluded. Poetry must also be truthful, for in Plato’s polis only the leaders have the right to lie; the rest must not hear lies, lest they learn to lie themselves. For a young guard, lying to his superior is the most terrible crime. Poetic tales must teach prudence, chastity and restraint (σωφροσύνη), and not sing of drinking bouts, feasts, love scenes. Even more so, a poet should not say, as often happened, that the unjust are blessed, while the just remain unhappy because of their injustice.
Poetry is divided by Plato into two types: narrative and imitative. Plato prefers the first, since imitative poetry, imitating many things, creates the appearance that the poet knows them all. And this contradicts the main principle of the construction of Plato’s state, the principle of specialization. Imitative poetry is allowed only in the case of imitating a perfect man in his most perfect deeds. This is apparently how Plato looked at his own dialogues, imitating the deeds of Socrates. In general, poetry can be allowed into Plato’s state only if it brings not pleasure, but benefit in the education of guards. It, as Plato says, should “sculpt the soul”, and pleasures, poetic charm spoil and destroy this soul.
In addition to words, text, and content, the art of music also includes harmony and rhythm. According to Plato, they must, firstly, be subordinated to the word and meaning, and secondly, tune the soul to a courageous mood both in war and in peacetime. The word must imitate the beautiful state of the soul, and the harmony and rhythm – the word. In general, only such masters are allowed into Plato’s polis, be they poets or carpenters, who can, having seen traces of beauty in the surrounding world, create the same beautiful imitations of them, so that the souls of those being educated, even in the speechless period of their development, accept examples of beauty and goodness. A guardian who has undergone true musical education will also be imbued with true, beautiful and chaste Eros. Plato emphasizes the importance of musical education, citing the words of the musician Damon: “There is no change in music that would not lead to a change in the most important foundations of political life.” Gymnastic education, i.e. education of the body, naturally occupies a subordinate position in Plato. A good body is possible only with a good soul, and gymnastic exercises and diet must be subject to the same conditions as the art of music: be simple and avoid diversity and variety, striving to develop not strength but courage. A healthy way of life, which appeared due to correct gymnastics, should make the art of healing almost unnecessary, which flourishes in corrupt states due to the presence of rich idlers. A true doctor, according to Plato, should treat only those who can recover; the incurable are given the opportunity to die quickly, for such a person is of no use either to himself or to the polis.
Since the musical and gymnastic arts develop different sides of the soul, meekness and courage, they must complement each other, and practicing one without the other either weakens or hardens the soul. A person who knows how to merge these two arts, to measure and adjust them to each other, to find the proper measure of their correspondence, should be at the head of the polis. The most important quality of the head of the state should be the ability to do what is most useful to the polis, not forgetting about it in sorrow or in joy. To test these qualities, Plato suggests arranging, starting from childhood, numerous tests that should show who has this quality and who does not. The guards cannot have any property, they cannot have their own home, but must live together. They cannot own gold or silver, they cannot have any money, they receive from their fellow citizens only the necessary food. Otherwise, they will turn from guards and warriors into artisans and peasants, doing something that is not their business, and then they will strive not to protect their fellow citizens, but to have power over them. According to Plato, the structure of the polis has as its goal not the happiness of any particular group of citizens, but the happiness of the entire polis, the polis as a whole, which is possible if each class is engaged only in its own business. This preference of the whole over its parts, the preferential position of the polis over the individual will allow some philosophers in the 20th century to speak of Platonic totalitarianism. In Plato’s state there can be no place for wealth and poverty, for they also hinder the perfection of each in his art, and besides, they turn any polis into two warring parties: the rich and the poor. Plato’s polis should not strive to expand its territory; it is limited to a territory sufficient to preserve its unity. The main concern of the polis is not territorial expansion, but the preservation of the education system that creates men who can manage the city without detailed regulation of all spheres of life. According to Plato, if the foundations of true political life, specialization and correct education are created, all other details of civil life will flow from these foundations.
What is a perfect polis? Plato answers this question with the doctrine of four fundamental virtues that must be present in such a state: wisdom, courage, prudence and justice. Wisdom, thanks to which a polis is properly governed, is the knowledge or science of what is good for the entire polis, for the polis as a whole. The bearers of wisdom are the senior guards; despite their small number, they lay the foundations of polis life. Courage is defined by Plato as maintaining the correct, i.e., corresponding to the basic principles of legislation, opinion about what should and should not be feared. It is possessed by the junior guards, or assistants. Prudence differs from the first two virtues in that it extends to all groups of Plato’s polis and does not have a special place in any particular group. It is defined as agreement and unanimity between those in charge and those under command, when the best, the superiors, rule over the worst, the subordinates. The last and most important virtue is justice, without which other types of virtue are impossible. Justice, according to Plato, consists in everyone doing his own thing, the thing to which each is determined by his nature. On the contrary, injustice is confusion and disorder, when an individual or a group does something for which they do not have a natural talent. This is Plato’s critique of democracy, which presupposes the possibility of everyone, regardless of their specific profession, to occupy leading positions in the state. Plato, trying to understand the rise and fall of Athenian democracy in the 5th century, saw its main defect in unprofessionalism, in the failure to understand that governing a state is an art and knowledge that only a few can possess. Therefore, Plato’s ideal polis cannot be democratic, it is the rule of those who know, be it one person (monarchy) or a few (aristocracy). An essential feature of Plato’s theory of the polis is the doctrine of the community of wives and children. According to Plato, despite all the differences, women and men represent the same nature, although women are generally inferior to men. Therefore, women should also be used to protect the polis, receive an education on an equal basis with men, and engage in gymnastics and music. Women guards should live together with male guards, eat together, and engage in gymnastics together. The leaders of the polis should select the best representatives of both sexes for marriage in order to obtain the best possible offspring. Plato is not interested in personal relationships between men and women, he is concerned with the choice of producers, determining the age optimal for procreation (for men, this is the age from 25 to 55 years, for women – from 20 to 40
[2]), on the model of thoroughbred dog or horse breeding. The offspring of bad producers should not be nursed. Since children are produced not for the pleasure of their parents in old age, but for the good of the polis, children are taken from their mothers at birth and transferred to the state “nursery”, where they are nursed both by their mothers and by specially appointed wet nurses. Accordingly, children do not have mothers and fathers, but all men old enough to be their parents are called fathers, all women – mothers, all peers – brothers and sisters, all elderly guards – grandfathers and grandmothers. According to Plato, such an approach to raising offspring should ensure the maximum unity of the state. In such a polis, the words “mine” and “not mine” should not be heard, the guards cannot have any private property, no houses, no wives, no children, not even their own pain and joy, all this must be common.
The state should be governed by philosophers who have undergone long scientific and philosophical training, at the end of which they learn to contemplate the idea of the good and, accordingly, good and evil in the specific affairs of the polis. These philosophers are the best, and their government is aristocracy, the best form of government, according to Plato. It is important to note that, creating a typology of governments, forms of state life, Plato proceeds from the doctrine of the soul. Thus, aristocracy is a government in which the rational principle dominates, and the rest are subordinate to it. Aristocracy passes into timocracy, the government of the ambitious, in which the main role is played by the volitional principle, to which the rational and lustful are subordinated. Timocracy passes into oligarchy, the government of a few wealthy people striving for greater and greater wealth. From oligarchy the path leads to an even worse system of government, to democracy, in which all citizens have an equal position regardless of their abilities and education. Plato considers democracy to be the penultimate form of government in terms of corruption. The greatest evil is tyranny, the rule of one corrupt person. Plato’s exposition of a just society ends with the myth of an afterlife that will put everyone in their place according to their virtue and vice. This is the final justification for why justice is better than injustice.
Literature
1. Platonis Opera. Vol. IV. Ed. J. Burnet. Oxonii, 1900-1907.
2. The Works of Plato. T. I-II. M., 1899- 1903.
3. Plato. Collected Works. T. I-IV. M, 1990-1994.
4. Diogenes Laërtius. On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers. M, 1979.
5. Vasilyeva T. V. Athenian school of philosophy. Moscow, 1985.
6. Vasilyeva T. V. The Path to Plato. M., 1998.
7. Asmus V. F. Plato. M., 1969.
8.Natorp P. Piatos Ideenlehre. Leipzig, 1903.
9.Wilamowitz von Moellendorff U. Platon. Bd. I-II. Berlin, 1919-1920.