A CRITIQUE ON PLATO’S POLITICS AND EPISTEMOLOGY

A CRITIQUE ON PLATO’S POLITICS AND EPISTEMOLOGY

Plato (428-348 BC) was an ancient Greek Philosopher whose interest spans through Metaphysics, Epistemology, Politics, Ethics, and Dialectics in his search for ultimate reality. He is known in several quarters to be a student of Socrates (470-399 BC) and an older contemporary and teacher of Aristotle(384-322 BC). In spite of his relation with ancient Philosophers, his individualism coloured his assertions in a variety of fields on peculiar grounds. While Socrates had little or no written materials to support his claims, Plato has got some extant publications. And while Aristotle wrote more materials than Plato, his paradigm was more of realistic, scientific, this-worldly, and pragmatic; Plato’s was idealistic, inspiring, other-worldly and perfectionist. It is, therefore from these paradigms I’ll make my critique.

First and foremost, the absoluteness of any theory makes the grounds upon which it is examined, questionable, as absolute emphasis on any school of thought waters down the “relative truths” it bears. For instance Newtonian Mechanic Theories and Einsteinian Atomic Theories clash at several points but in the “Mechanical realm” Einsteinian theories don’t ring true; so also does Mechanic Theories in “Atomic realms”. This, thus, follows that the peculiarity of Plato’s Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Dialectics addressed in the light of idealism, inspiration, other-worldly and perfectionism only fits in some aspect of the world, not all of it. Hence, the application of Platonism to explain “ultimate reality” would only do some good not all of it as he (Plato) claims”.

In his Politics, Plato takes exemption to majority rule known as “popular rule” or “democracy” by calling it “mob-rule”. In as much as I agree with his Philosopher-king assertions, I don’t agree to his take on Monarchy as the best form of Government. I don’t agree with him along the following lines.
First, the measure of anything, which has versions or variations, is by making comparisons of the merits and demerits of each category in order to draw conclusions. Thus, it is evident that history has given us succinct proof to the fact that the merits of democracy surpasses the merits of Monarchy and the demerits of Kingly rule exceeds that of Democracy. It is also evident that in a democracy a people deserve any government that governs them at any point in their history, so, just as John Locke (1632-1704) puts it, “the freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone in that society and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown and arbitrary will of another man” as it is in Monarchy. There’s no other form of government, known to man, in which the Liberties and Rights of men are protected from the excesses of Man’s nature as it does in a Democracy. In this vein, I disagree with Plato that Monarchy should hold sway.

In Plato’s Epistemology, he makes two analogies; the Theory of the Divided line and the Allegory of the Cave. In the theory of the Divided line, Plato posits “Pure knowledge”/“rational intuition” to exist in the “higher forms” and “thinking” in the ”lower forms” and concludes, in this regard, that this is the “highest form of knowing”. He continues to assert that in the world of the “visible”, “belief” and “conjecture” takes centre stage because they dwell on “opinion”.
In this regard, I beg to disagree with Plato because of these questions I tend to raise in my mind; How does what you don’t see or feel or hear or smell be the real thing? How do we come to terms with the fact that the invisible world is that which bears pure knowledge? How is it that what we know by seeing, by smelling, by tasting and by feeling be “unreal”, and that which we get by “rational intuition” be the “real”? Plato’s Epistemology, in this regard, beggars description and as such not agreeable to me.

Rather, the world of cognition takes preference especially for the role it has played in science and technology. The basis of science is cognition, proof and evidence on “things and objects”, and this is contrary to Plato’s view. Plato discourages his students from the world of “particulars”, but my question is; how can someone who is full of theories but lacks experience of the relevant “particulars” be efficient in knowledge? Knowledge begins with experiences in the “particulars or objects”. Sensation does not translate into genuine knowledge. That I have a sensation of porridge doesn’t mean I have genuine knowledge of having seen it or eaten it; the sight of the pudding is in the seeing, and the taste of the pudding is in the eating, nothing less! Nothing can be this clear! Thus senses is very vital in acquiring genuine knowledge (or pure knowledge as Plato would put it).

But I won’t, in the attempt to buttress the significance of the senses in the process of knowing, make overemphasis over Plato’s view because the importance of Plato’s idealism may not apply in science but may elsewhere in a variety of qualifications and sub-qualifications. So, since it’s impossible for any human to have a view into all that there is, there is no justification to refute Plato’s idealistic stance in its entirety, as it would fit somewhere we may not yet have a glimpse into.