|
The most important
issues in philosophy are in the area of Metaphysics & Epistemology. This
is because they are the foundation of the philosophical hierarchy:
Metaphysics-dealing
with the fundamental nature of existence, irreducible primaries, axiomatic
statements that everything that proceeds will be based upon.
Epistemology-dealing
with the nature of Knowledge, also referred to as the Theory of Knowledge.
Ethics-dealing fundamentally with how should humans act
in relation to reality, secondarily to each other.
Politics-dealing with how should humans deal with each
other and in what systematic way.
Aesthetics-dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and
taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty (more generally how
humans use their senses to appraise reality).
(By the way…For any system or collection of ideas to be
considered an actual “philosophy” all of these areas have to be covered
explicitly or implicitly.)
The differences between the philosophical outlooks of
Aristotle and Plato began a crucial central debate that is still with us
to this day. The debate centers on the areas of metaphysics and
epistemology. For the purposes of this discussion these areas can be
reduced to two simple questions: metaphysics-What do I know? &
epistemology-How do I know it? The central debate is about the nature of
concepts: i.e. what are they exactly, where do they come from, etc.
Plato claimed that concepts (or “ideas”) were actual objects in
another “dimension/world/reality”; specifically the World of Ideals (ideal
shapes, forms, structures) and that this other world was (of course, as
always) “higher/more important” than the one we actually perceive. Humans
only get a shadowy glimpse, a bad filtered representation of the “real”
existence of “things as they are”. Why can’t any of these wise guys ever
claim that humans perceive the most important aspects of reality and the
other dimensions that humans can’t perceive are less important? The only
answer I have for that is that they hate humanity. Anyway…..So, for
example, any given triangle that we perceive in our sad, little, lowly
world is just a reflection of the great Ideal Triangle in the Sky.
This amounts to the idea that concepts exist as literal objects
outside of the actual things they represent.
Aristotle claimed that concepts are in the nature of the object
that they represent. A human mind perceives that an object contains
certain specific characteristics and therefore categorizes these objects
mentally accordingly. Therefore a chair can be red or blue, made of wood
or metal, have three legs or four, but it’s essential characteristic is
“an object that humans use to sit on as furniture” regardless of it’s
other characteristics that help make it a specific, individual chair. All
chairs then, regardless of other lesser traits and even though they retain
these traits, contain the actuality of the concept “chair” (or that it has
“chair-ness”).
Actually, Aristotle’s idea was expanded upon by
novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. She pointed out that a concept doesn’t
actually physically reside in an object. A concept is a mental unit of
two or more concretes that each possess an essential, retained
characteristic (Rand
called it the Conceptual Common Denominator).
So, Plato said concepts are objects in fairy-land. Aristotle said
concepts are in the nature of the object (i.e. in reality, in this world).
Then
Rand
clarified Aristotle by saying that concepts are cognitive units that
humans use to mentally identify and classify concrete objects (and
actions) in reality.
This is the origin of the Raphael painting of Plato and Aristotle
walking at the Greek “university”; Plato is pointing at the sky, “Look to
the heavens if you want to know” while Aristotle is pointing at the
ground, “Look around you if you want to know”.
The Cave is Plato’s analogy for the actual (but not directly
perceived by humans) structure of reality.
The real problem with his analogy is an epistemological issue. If
humans do NOT actually perceive existence directly HOW WOULD A HUMAN KNOW
THAT? Or be able to figure it out? Once Plato claimed (and in some cases
convinced people) that human perception is an invalid method for dealing
with reality he accomplished two goals.
The first is to undercut the concept of objectivity.
Metaphysically this translates into the question, “If you are going to
start out by claiming that human senses (and therefore perception) are NOT
valid, then, how would you ever be able to verify that information?
Furthermore, how would you ever be able to make anymore claims about
anything?” Of course this never stops Plato (or Kant or Hegel) from
continuing to make claims. I mean, really….stop and think about that
chain of thoughts for a second:
- I am human.
- I have human
senses and they are my means of perceiving reality.
- Human senses are
invalid (or imperfect) for perceiving reality.
- Therefore I
cannot possibly ever make any valid conclusions or observations about
reality.
- But I will
continue to write long, complicated philosophical prose anyway.
The second goal is to undercut the efficacy of the human mind.
Plato is not interested in convincing you that he is right. He just wants
you to feel confused enough to say, “Wow that’s confusing. It must be
really deep and important. I have no idea what the hell he’s talking
about, but he probably does so it must be right to doubt the validity of
my senses and mind.”
That’s all he wants. Plato was either stupid enough to actually
believe his own ideas which would make him relatively harmless or else he
was smart enough to know he was peddling nonsense (conveyed as
“philosophy”) which would make him essentially evil.
Why else would someone set up a false, arbitrary/hypothetical
explanation of human perception (“world of ideals vs. world of shadows”,
“filtered perception”) and an equally invalid theory of concepts (“ideal
shapes and forms”, Kant’s “categorical imperatives”)? Basically, because
if you can get people to accept that much then it’s (in the words of Cole
Porter) “Anything goes!”. The crazier and more esoteric the idea, the
better! Is it any wonder we have blockhead psychics on TV talking to dead
pets? Or people successfully claiming in courts of justice that society
made them kill innocent people?
I think in many cases Aristotle is viewed as very boring because
his is so very systematic, thorough and Monumentally Common Sense
Orientated: A is A. A thing is itself. A thing possesses certain
characteristic qualities and cannot act outside of or in contradiction to
its nature. People that don’t want to use their minds to deal honestly
and effectively with reality have a friend in Plato. And to these kind of
people Aristotle is a huge, strict and stern reminder that reality is not
interested in whether or not you want to pretend that 2+2=5 or that the
car coming down the street you are crossing is “really just a subjective
pre-cognitive figment of your imaginative filtered consciousness.” So it
won’t hit you and possibly kill you because it’s not real? And I grant
that it is hard work to always be THINKING and consciously making an
effort to honestly apprehend and understand reality. But in the end it is
the most rewarding. And anyway, what other choice do you really have?
It’s not like you have an option on which sense you want to use to see an
object. It’s not like you have an option on which “reality” you want to
perceive.
I think it is also important to note that Plato placed the people
in his analogy in a dark cave and physically chained up. This is
psychologically representative of the way that Plato wants you to react to
his setup. You are supposed to feel that you are being held back or down
or “enslaved” by your senses and “this world”. Remember that when you
find out that Aristotle was thrilled with the idea of using your senses to
discover, understand and categorize the beautiful world around us (i.e.
reality).
By the way, remember Plato was the guy that claimed, “Love is a
disease.” Whereas Aristotle a bit more benevolently observed that, “Love
is an expression of values.”
Plato was the first in a long line of philosophers that setup a
bizarre construct of ideas and analogies that make little or no sense in
direct comparison to objective reality (i.e. the universe humans actually
live in and perceive). Plato’s Cave is the original blueprint for
cynical supernaturalism. This is pure mysticism superficially disguised
to resemble rationalism. In this sense I mean mysticism as a set of ideas
that cannot ever be proved or understood. So why try to explain it
with complicated scenarios? Why try to “explain” it at all? It is also
probably worth noting that it is the starting point for every thinker
thereafter that wanted to devalue human existence; and it is a very
effective tour de force in accomplishing this objective.
Christopher Schlegel is
a musician and composer of Objectivist convictions. He is additionally a
writer of short fiction and essays, and a contributor to The Rational
Argumentator and its
store.
You can also visit his
website (http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com) and contact him by
e-mail.
Give feedback on
this work at TRA's new forum, which you can access at
http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.
Visit The Rational
Argumentator's new
Online Store.
Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, the newest
means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find
it at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator.
You can sign up by sending an e-mail to
[email protected].
Click here to return to the Issue XXIV index.
Visit
TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues
of the magazine. Click
here. |
