Plato, Socrates, and the highest Aristotle

Plato, Socrates, and the highest Aristotle

Aristotle is the philosopher, who is always portrayed as the elder gentleman, and the thing is that man is actually the symbol of the highest level of the philosophy. Or this is how I think about it. Socrates is always suspicious and somebody has been said sometimes, that in the last day he was not suspicious in the most important moment of his life. The thing is that when Socrates took his penalty, and drink the poison, the story tells that somebody said that taking the poison is a voluntary thing and the wine, what was in the hand of Socrates was poisonous. Socrates suspected that thing and drink that poison. In this story, people used the suspicious way to think against the thinker, and because Socrates always thought the opposite way than others, he took the poison.

So the second man in the series is Plato. He was in the side of the government and state, and sometimes his need to defend and support the state and order were sometimes made people angry. His model of the "idealistic state" was one of the most extracted things in the history of literacy and philosophy, but when we are looking at the model little bit more careful, there is one weakness. Plato was the philosopher himself, and he rises philosophers on the top of the state. So he actually rises himself to the leader of the state, and that means he was willing to take control of the state. But there is one thing, what we might not think very often.

Plato meant many things when he made the model of the idealistic state, and of course, that model might be the training system, that the people would get enough muscle that they had the strength to use weapons in the battlefield. But the model, where the lowest grade was Helotes, and on the top were the philosophers is sometimes seemed to release military commanders from the responsibility, because they can always blame the leaders of the state.

And the most less well-known interpretation of the chart, what Plato has been created was the level of learning things. At the beginning everything is difficult, but when the studies are advancing things would go easier and easier. Somebody has said that Plato's model was actually the life, and in the beginning, children are like Helotes, and when a person gets older, would the strength and wisdom grow, and at the end of the life would the person gets the thing, what might call as "philosophical wisdom". That means also growing respect, what grows in the personality of the man or woman, and in every society, the elder persons would face respect.

At last, we are meeting Aristotle. That character is the fusion or combination of the Socrates and Plato. The thing is that Aristotle might be the final and the highest grade of the philosopher. That means that when Socrates told many things but ever wrote anything, Plato would write stories and writings, but he was like stone. He afraid that the state or leaders of the state would get angry with him, and that thing might be a very big pain in the neck. Plato was like stone, but when those personalities would get in the one body would raise the philosopher, who dares to tell the opinions and have a different point of view than other people, but he also dares to defend the things, what Aristotle sees good.

And this makes this person a complicated character. The thing in the ideal state is that it's not a democracy, but there is one problem with democratic states, and that is "what the handicapped person would lead the state"?. The problem with democracy is that everybody can make decisions, and that makes it the best way to rule the government. That would give the ordinary people responsibility about the things, what are ordered to do, and democracy gives people the feeling that they are all members of the same state, and they should improve it.

If we would rule the state as Plato suggested, we are facing the thing, that the philosophers who are actually dictators would live in an isolated place away from the society, and then they were addicted by the information, what other people would tell them. If we are thinking more about democracy, that means that every person in the state must know about the things, what influences every decision might have. When we are facing the thing, that people would not know about the influence, what some decision might cause, they probably make the wrong choice.

And here we are facing the thing, what is known as judgment. When the people of Athens gave the death penalty to Socrates, we must understand one thing. Athens was not a democracy. The rulers were actually a very small group of people, and the thing is that even in the large coalitions could be only one person, who had the right to be the citizen. Only the citizen had the right to make a decision in the colleges. The thing was that the other people gave also votes, but they were only for the advisory. The real votes were given by the citizens, who had the absolute power, and in fact, that ruling class was sitting in the middle of the college, but they had a different kind of papers.

That made possible that Athens was ruled by only a couple of people, but ordinary people thought that they had the change to influence the things, what are made in that city. The thing was that the highest class of the city of Athens covered their power in the democratic form. Every people had the right to discuss things, but the power and rule were in the hands of the ruling class, which were less than a hundred people. The idea of Athens was that even the foreigner could be elected to the position the leader, but the thing is that this kind of leader worked under the supervision of the real citizens, and those "real citizens" must accept or deny the decision, what that person made. And that way to use the power was really confessing, but many people believed it.

Does writing create ideas and thoughts?

Does writing create ideas and thoughts?

This is a good question because writing is proof about thinking, and it would show other people the thing, what is in the writer's mind. And that is a very interesting point of view because the writings are proof of the thoughts of the ancient philosophers' opinions. The thing is that without writings the persons like Socrates would remain in history, and nobody knows about them. And the thing that is always forgotten is that Socrates has not written anything, and the things what this man said were written by Platon. This thing makes me think that could the Sokrates really teach other people, or was he only speak himself?

This is one of the ideas, what this ancient philosopher has brought in my mind. When we are thinking about Plato's academy, where the philosophers have spoken together, we might ask, what kind of place that academy really was? I think that the old garden, where those people talked together was not anything else than some bulletin board, where those philosophers hang their texts, and copied the other philosopher's texts, and gave answers to the problems.

This might seem very much against the persons, who thought that the philosophers sat in the temple or somewhere like that. The thing was that those people would be persecuted if they were against the leaders, and that's why they might hide their identities. When we are talking about the academy, Plato might mean the life itself.

He spoke and write by using symbolic language, and when we are facing thoughts, that this man was some kind of traveler, I must say that it is possible that he was a sailor in some part of his life, and he wrote a letter to his comrades and portrayed the ideas to them, and maybe he did it on the last day in the harbors. But then we can think about this problem with the other way. Maybe Plato ever visited in the places, where he claimed to visit.

Maybe he played some kind of novelist, who wrote novels for the people. Here I mean,  there is a possibility, that Plato's trips were only symbols, and he heard the Ultima Thule from some tradesmen. And the tale of the Atlantis might also hear some sailors, and the "priest from Egypt" is the fake identity, what is made for covering the real identity of that person. There are things that are really interesting, and when we are thinking about the man, Plato, and other philosophers, they are living forever in the middle of the people by their texts, what is still impressive.