mean time just read this please and tell me if it's ok. 4:19PM
In his article Theses on Feuerbach Karl Marx criticizes philosophers for not using the knowledge they acquire to help change the world they live in. He argues that all the major philosophers before him are guilty of merely observing the world without then doing anything of significance. Such a bold statement makes it easy to discount the usefulness of any philosophical work prior to Marx’s time; however, jumping too quickly to that conclusion would be a mistake. I believe that Plato, like Marx, advocates using philosophy to incite change in society. The only difference lies in how each philosopher thinks these changes should be achieved. Plato works on a more scholastic level that ceases to have a practical link with the public he is trying to influence. It is because Plato lacked this emphasis on practicality that he was unsuccessful at convincing society to accept his philosophical teachings.
Plato first turned to philosophy as a young boy but it was the execution of Socrates and the revolt of the Thirty that set him on course to become the well-known philosopher he is today. The jury at Socrates’ trial showed how irrational and dangerous the public can be when it is persuaded into making decisions based on appearances and opinions. The failure of the Thirty to establish a proper state proved that people can become greedy and overly consumed with only their self-interests when given too much power. Although Plato came from an aristocratic family that had a background in politics, he could not bring himself to enter the political fray after witnessing these events. Instead he sought to change his society for the better by trying to establish a framework for what he called the “ideal state.” Plato believed that the makeup of the state was directly responsible for the types of citizens it yielded. As such it could be understood that if an ideal state could be established, the ideal citizens would follow. In order to understand what such a state should entail it became necessary for Plato to somehow find a way to distinguish between knowledge and opinion. He wanted to be sure that his concept of the ideal state was made on the basis of reality and fact- not the same faulty appearances and opinions that had led to the unfair execution of his mentor and teacher. In response to this need Plato came up with the notion of his famous Forms.
It becomes evident that at the core of all his philosophical works Plato’s primary objective was to identify what the ideal state should be like. Once the ideal state was clearly defined there would be a definitive goal to strive for. Thus it is logical to presume that Plato meant to define the ideal state with the ultimate purpose of using his definition to effectively change the world. The question that now needs to be asked is: was he successful? Academics have acknowledged that Plato “has exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual,” but no one dares say that his ideal state was ever truly realized. The concepts of knowledge and opinion are central to Plato’s metaphysics (is it metaphysics or something else?**). He goes on to establish different levels of knowledge to represent the different degrees to which a person might understand the Forms. On the most general scale people are divided into two stages: becoming and being. Only those that have reached enlightenment through hard world and diligent training can enter the stage of being. Since it is possible for some people to be closer to being than others it goes along that not everyone is equal. Only a select few have the knowledge and understanding to be fit to govern over us. Plato’s philosophy favours a hierarchal society that places the most enlightened at the top. We need only look to today’s governmental structures to see that the public did not take Plato’s suggestions to heart. We live in a democracy whereby each citizen is given a chance to voice their opinions on any given topic. According to Plato, therein lies the problem. Plato argues that democracy is a system to be avoided because it allows citizens to make decisions based purely on opinion.
Marx’s criticisms need not be applied to Plato’s purposes in using philosophy but to why he failed in the execution of his ideas. If Plato’s philosophical viewpoints make so much sense why has society been so reluctant to implement them? If we are to believe Marx’s claims, Plato’s major error comes from his preoccupation with scholastic questions instead of more practical ones. Even in Raphael’s painting, The School of Athens, Plato is depicted in the centre with his hand pointing upwards to the sky as his pupil Aristotle points to the ground. Symbolically this is in reference to the commonly held notion that Plato was always concerned with grand theories that were hard to carry out while Aristotle was more focused on practical concerns that dealt with our present lives. In his third thesis Marx notes that change will only come when men decide to implement it. Circumstances will not be changed on their own. Plato should have appealed to the people in his community when he made his arguments so that they might be inspired to seek out change. In order to entice the general public Plato needed to speak to the people in terms that they would understand. His theory of the Forms was so abstract that the average person either could not see how it related to his/her everyday life or simply did not understand it. Marx writes, “All social life is essentially practical.” Hence, it makes most sense to ask questions that have an impact on our lives here and now. If Plato had asked more practical questions his resulting philosophy would have been more firmly rooted in matters that would be of greater concern to the exact people he was trying to affect. People are more willing to work for change if they can see that what they are working for has a direct impact on their lives.
Personally I think it is obvious that Plato had full intentions to change the world with his use of philosophy, but whether or not he was successful is arguable. It does not make sense for Plato to have struggled to articulate what the ideal state should be and then stop there. He did not wish to have this definition on a whim without any plans to use it afterwards. Clearly once the ideal image of any given thing is identified it is human nature to try to achieve that perfection. Plato is no different. On the other hand it is much harder to measure whether or not Plato failed to spark the change he was hoping for. Immediately it is easiest to conclude that Plato’s work had no lasting effect on our world because the ideal state has not been realized. On a more subtle level the argument can be made that Plato’s ideas were hugely influential on the work of later philosophers, chiefly Aristotle. This contribution to the world of philosophy has no doubt kick-started the minds of potential philosophers everywhere. Over time if the collective works of all these philosophers were reviewed together we would see that changes were made.
Who were Marx’s influences? Link that back and back to eventually Plato. The key is the gradual effects.
Then conclusion woohoo!