I was thinking that maybe the reason why Plato never answers any of his questions in a more direct manner is because he does not want to influence our answers. While he tries to teach us the right way to think about a topic and guide us towards certain topics worth exploring, he does not impose us his ideologies. Reading his works separately I will admit is not an easy task; relating them under one umbrella however, for me particularly, make all his ideas more sensible.
While Plato seems to specifically dissect the human soul in the republic; I have come to believe that most of his works have one specific goal to analyze the different parts of human nature, and to help individually define who we are. The books that we’ve covered thus far examined virtue, perception, justice etc; they all have a common thread and its man’s true nature.
Is it possible that Plato knew the answers to the questions he sought? Is it possible that he did not answer them to give our own conclusion a sense of individuality? I know of course that it is probably a possibility I’d be grateful to know why exactly it would be a plausible theory?
I think there is a lot of value in philosophical work that doesn't set out to say "this is how it is" but instead functions as a springboard for further inquiry and questioning. In ethics and moral subjects this is especially crucial, because people never want to be told what is right or wrong, but prefer to arrive at their own conclusions. In ordinary life simply saying how it is tends to alienate one from one's audience, whereas if we say "these are the questions and problems" then it's much more conducive to further conversation and independent thinking.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Plato's aporetic works (i.e. the ones that are about and end in aporia, that is, puzzles) I think part of the message is that the subjects are real and worth our interest. For instance the Theatetus is about knowledge. We don't know what knowledge is, but what matters is that we know it does exist. If we say that it doesn't, then, well, I don't know why we are even having this conversation. What the dialogue accomplishes, while not giving a firm theory or proof regarding what knowledge is, is still valuable to the extent that the conversation does shed light on what knowledge seems to be like (e.g. when the waxblock of the soul is stamped by a perception) and also what it is not (e.g. opinion without justification).